Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Electrical, Electronic and System Engineering, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
  • 2 Department of Electrical, Electronic and System Engineering, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia. mamun@ukm.edu.my
  • 3 Department of Electrical Engineering, Qatar University, 2713, Doha, Qatar. mchowdhury@qu.edu.qa
Sci Rep, 2020 12 10;10(1):21770.
PMID: 33303857 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-78787-0

Abstract

Despite the availability of various clinical trials that used different diagnostic methods to identify diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN), no reliable studies that prove the associations among diagnostic parameters from two different methods are available. Statistically significant diagnostic parameters from various methods can help determine if two different methods can be incorporated together for diagnosing DSPN. In this study, a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed to determine the associations among the different parameters from the most commonly used electrophysiological screening methods in clinical research for DSPN, namely, nerve conduction study (NCS), corneal confocal microscopy (CCM), and electromyography (EMG), for different experimental groups. Electronic databases (e.g., Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar) were searched systematically for articles reporting different screening tools for diabetic peripheral neuropathy. A total of 22 studies involving 2394 participants (801 patients with DSPN, 702 controls, and 891 non-DSPN patients) were reviewed systematically. Meta-analysis was performed to determine statistical significance of difference among four NCS parameters, i.e., peroneal motor nerve conduction velocity, peroneal motor nerve amplitude, sural sensory nerve conduction velocity, and sural sensory nerve amplitude (all p 

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.