Key result
The Neuropad indicator test demonstrated 99% sensitivity and 78.3% specificity for detecting small-fiber impairment in type 2 diabetes, with similar diagnostic frequency to clinical exam (P=.999).
Why the study?
Does the Neuropad indicator test accurately diagnose small-fiber impairment in patients with type 2 diabetes compared to conventional clinical examination?
Population
123 patients with type 2 diabetes
Comparison
Neuropad indicator test for sudomotor function vs Conventional clinical examination
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Neuropad may aid small-fiber screening in type 2 diabetes; leaves open whether it improves outcomes over exam alone.
Cross-Sectional (n=123)
Does the Neuropad indicator test accurately diagnose small-fiber impairment in patients with type 2 diabetes compared to conventional clinical examination?
Absolute Event Rate: 80.5% vs 81.3%
p-value: p=.999
The Neuropad indicator test demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity for detecting small-fiber impairment in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Παπάνας et al. (2007) conducted a cross-sectional in Type 2 diabetes (n=123). Neuropad indicator test vs. Conventional clinical examination was evaluated on Frequency of small-fiber impairment diagnosis (p=.999). The Neuropad indicator test demonstrated 99% sensitivity and 78.3% specificity for detecting small-fiber impairment in type 2 diabetes, with similar diagnostic frequency to clinical exam (P=.999).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: