Which combined nerve conduction study scores are best suited for polyneuropathy in diabetic patients?

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Nerve conduction studies (NCS) are widely used in diagnosing diabetic polyneuropathy. Combining the Z scores of several measures (Z-compounds) may improve diagnostics by grading abnormality. We aimed to determine which combination of nerves and measures is best suited for studies of diabetic polyneuropathy. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with type 1 diabetes and 35 controls were included in this study. NCS measurements were taken from commonly investigated nerves in one arm and both legs. Different Z-compounds were calculated and compared with reference material to assess abnormality. A sensitivity proxy, the accuracy index (AI), and Cohen's d were calculated. RESULTS: Z-compounds with the highest AI consisted of the tibial and peroneal motor, and the sural, superficial peroneal, and tibial medial plantar sensory nerves in one or two legs. All Z-compounds were able to discriminate between diabetic subjects and nondiabetic controls (mean Cohen's d = 1.42 [range, 1.03-1.63]). The association between AI and number of measures was best explained logarithmically (R2  = 0.401), with diminishing returns above approximately 14 or 15 measures. F-wave inclusion may increase the AI of the Z compounds. Although often clinically useful among the non-elderly, the additional inclusion of medial plantar NCS into Z-compounds in general did not improve AI. DISCUSSION: Performing unilateral NCS in several motor and sensory lower extremity nerves is suited for the evaluation of polyneuropathy in diabetic patients. The use of Z-compounds may improve diagnostic accuracy in diabetic polyneuropathy and may be particularly useful for follow-up research studies as single summary measures of NCS abnormality development over time.

Accuracy of neuropathic pain measurements in patients with symptoms of polyneuropathy: validation of painDETECT, Self-Completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs, and Douleur Neuropathique 4.

ABSTRACT: Pain is a common symptom in patients referred to polyneuropathy assessment. Diagnostic evaluation and choice of treatment may depend on whether the pain is likely to be neuropathic or not. This study aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of 3 tools commonly used to differentiate between neuropathic and nonneuropathic pain. To accomplish this, we included patients with bilateral distal lower extremity pain, referred to neurological outpatient clinics at 5 Norwegian University hospitals for polyneuropathy assessment. The patients filled in Norwegian versions of painDETECT, the Self-Completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS), and the clinician-rated Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4). All patients underwent a clinical examination and nerve conduction measurements and were classified according to the NeuPSIG neuropathic pain criteria (reference standard). In total, 729 patients were included, of which 63% had neuropathic pain by the reference standard. Only DN4 demonstrated high sensitivity (0.87), whereas all 3 tools had low specificity (≤0.65). Importantly, the tools' predictive ability was unsatisfactory; The probability of getting a correct test result was 3 quarters at best, and at worst, no better than two fifths. Consequently, we show that neither DN4, painDETECT, nor S-LANSS can be confidently used to assess neuropathic pain in a neurological outpatient population with symptoms of polyneuropathy.

Diagnostic accuracy of the 5.07 monofilament test for diabetes polyneuropathy: influence of age, sex, neuropathic pain and neuropathy severity.

INTRODUCTION: There is a need for simple and cheap diagnostic tools for diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN). We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the 5.07/10 g monofilament test in patients referred to polyneuropathy assessments, as well as to examine how disease severity, age, sex and neuropathic pain (NP) impact diagnostic accuracy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Five Norwegian university hospitals recruited patients with diabetes aged 18-70 referred to neurological outpatient clinics for polyneuropathy assessments. The 5.07/10 g Semmes-Weinstein monofilament examination (SWME) was validated against the Toronto consensus for diagnosing diabetic neuropathies; the results were stratified by age, sex and NP. Disease severity was graded by a combined nerve conduction study (NCS) Z-score, and logistic regression was applied to assess whether disease severity was a predictor of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: In total, 506 patients were included in the study. Global sensitivity was 0.60 (95% CI 0.55, 0.66), specificity 0.82 (95% CI 0.75, 0.87), positive and negative predictive values were 0.86 (95% CI 0.81, 0.90) and 0.52 (95% CI 0.46, 0.58), respectively, positive and negative likelihood ratios were 3.28 (95% CI 2.37, 4.53) and 0.49 (95% CI 0.42, 0.57), respectively. The SWME was less sensitive in females (0.43), had lower specificity in patients with NP (0.56), and performed worse in patients ≥50 years. NCS-based disease severity did not affect diagnostic accuracy (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.95, 1.40). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study demonstrates poor diagnostic performance for the 5.07/10 g SWME in patients with diabetes referred to polyneuropathy assessments; it is particularly unsuited for female patients and those with NP. The diagnostic accuracy of the SWME was not influenced by NCS-based disease severity, demonstrating that it does not perform better in patients with later stages of DPN. We do not recommend the use of the 5.07/10 g monofilament in the evaluation of patients with diabetes referred to polyneuropathy assessments.