ABSTRACT
Background: Sudomotor dysfunction may appear in early stages of diabetic neuropathy. Aim: To evaluate the diagnostic capacity of the Neuropad test, based on the detection of sudomotor dysfunction, as an early indicator of diabetic neuropathy. Material and Methods: In Forty-two type 2 diabetic patients, the Neuropad test was compared with the 10 g monofilament test (proposed in the technical orientation of diabetic foot of the Ministry of Health of Chile), deep and thermal sensitivity. Results: The surface sensitivity assessed with a brush had a sensitivity and specificity of 18.8 and 100% respectively when compared with the 10 g monofilament. When compared with the Neuropad, the figures were 9 and 100%, respectively. Pain perception sensitivity and specificity were 13 and 100% respectively when compared with the 10 g monofilament. The figures were 6 and 100%, when compared with the Neuropad. Thermal discrimination had a sensitivity and specificity of 88 and 33% respectively when compared with the 10 g monofilament. The figures were 75 and 25% respectively when compared with the Neuropad. The deep sensitivity evaluated with a 128 Hz tuning fork had a sensitivity and specificity of 31 and 100% respectively when compared with the 10 g monofilament. The figures were 16 and 31% respectively when compared with the Neuropad. The Neuropad had a sensitivity and specificity of 94 and 29% respectively were compared with the 10 g monofilament. Conclusions: Neuropad had a good diagnostic yield for the early detection of sudomotor dysfunction.
Subject(s)
Humans , Diabetic Foot , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Diabetic Neuropathies , Chile , Diagnostic Tests, RoutineABSTRACT
La calidad del reporte de los resultados de una investigación no es óptima, razón por la cual, se han desarrollado numerosas iniciativas tendientes a mejorar este aspecto a lo largo de los años. El objetivo de este artículo es mencionar y describir las iniciativas existentes para el reporte de resultados de investigación biomédica en diversos escenarios de investigación clínica y situaciones especiales. Se realizó una búsqueda en las bases de datos THE COCHRANE LIBRARY, MEDLINE, SciELO y Redalyc; y en los buscadores Clinical Evidence, TRIP database, Fisterra, Rafabravo, EQUATOR Network, portal de BIREME y Programa HINARI; para obtener las listas de verificación existentes. Los documentos recuperados fueron agrupados de la siguiente forma: relacionados con escenarios de terapia, diagnóstico, pronóstico, evaluaciones económicas y misceláneas. La búsqueda generó un total de 31 documentos. Doce para escenarios de terapia (CONSORT, QUOROM, MOOSE, STRICTA, TREND, MINCIR-Terapia, RedHot, REHBaR, PRISMA, REFLECT, Ottawa y SPIRIT), 5 para diagnóstico (STARD, QUADAS, QAREL, GRRAS y MINCIR-Diagnóstico), 3 para pronóstico (REMARK, MINCIR-Pronóstico y GRIPS), 4 para evaluaciones económicas (NHS-HTA, CHEERS, ISPOR RCT-CEA y NICE-STA,); y 7 misceláneos (STROBE, COREQ, GRADE, SQUIRE, STREGA, ORION y MINCIR-EOD). Existen diversas iniciativas y declaraciones. Estas deben ser conocidas y utilizadas por escritores, revisores y editores de revistas biomédicas; de forma tal de incrementar la calidad del reporte de resultados de la investigación biomédica.
Quality of results reporting is not perfect, many initiatives tending to improve this aspect of clinical research have been developed in the last decade. The aim of this manuscript is to mention and describe the existent initiatives for reporting biomedical research results in different scenarios and special situations. To obtain check-lists, a search in THE COCHRANE LIBRARY, MEDLINE, SciELO y Redalyc; Clinical Evidence, TRIP database, Fisterra, Rafabravo, EQUATOR Network, BIREME and HINARI Program was developed. Identified documents were grouped in relation with clinical research scenarios (therapy, diagnosis, prognosis and economic evaluations) and miscellaneous. The search allows finding 31 documents. Twelve for therapy (CONSORT, QUOROM, MOOSE,STRICTA, TREND, MINCIR-Therapy, RedHot, REHBaR, PRISMA,REFLECT, Ottawa and SPIRIT), 5 for diagnosis (STARD, QUADAS, QAREL, GRRAS and MINCIR-Diagnosis), 3 for prognosis (REMARK, MINCIR-Prognosis and GRIPS), 4 for economic evaluations (NHS-HTA, CHEERS, ISPOR RCT-CEA and NICE-STA,) and 7 miscellaneous (STROBE, COREQ, GRADE, SQUIRE, STREGA, ORION and MINCIR-EOD). Different initiatives and statements were found. These must be noted and used by writers, reviewers and editors of biomedical journals, in order to improve the quality of reporting results.