A comparison of the monofilament with other testing modalities for foot ulcer susceptibility

Bresta Miranda-Palma, Jay M Sosenko, J. H. Bowker, M. S. Mizel, A. J M Boulton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

63 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We studied the number of testing sites and the proportion needed to be insensate for the optimal assessment of foot ulcer risk with the 10 g monofilament. Also, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of the 10 g monofilament with other methodologies. Fifty-two individuals with either a current foot ulcer, a history of a foot ulcer or the presence of Charcot neuroarthopathy and 51 individuals with no history of any of these conditions were assessed with the 10 g monofilament at four sites on each foot, the 128 Hz tuning fork at the halluces, the Biothesiometer at the halluces and the modified neuropathy disability score. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated for the various modalities. The Biothesiometer and the neuropathy disability score had the highest sensitivities (0.92 for both). The 128 Hz tuning fork tested only at the halluces (criterion: ≥1 insensate site) had the same sensitivity (0.86) as the 10 g monofilament tested at eight sites (criterion: ≥1 insensate site) with similar specificities (0.56 and 0.58, respectively). The Biothesiometer and the modified neuropathy disability score tend to be more sensitive than the 10 g monofilament for the assessment of individuals at risk for foot ulcers. The 128 Hz tuning fork tested at only two sites is as sensitive as the 10 g monofilament tested at eight sites. These data suggest that the 10 g monofilament may not be the optimum methodology for identifying individuals at risk of foot ulcers.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)8-12
Number of pages5
JournalDiabetes Research and Clinical Practice
Volume70
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2005

Fingerprint

Foot Ulcer
Hallux
Sensitivity and Specificity
Foot

Keywords

  • Diabetes mellitus
  • Foot ulcer
  • Monofilament
  • Neuropathy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Endocrinology
  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism

Cite this

A comparison of the monofilament with other testing modalities for foot ulcer susceptibility. / Miranda-Palma, Bresta; Sosenko, Jay M; Bowker, J. H.; Mizel, M. S.; Boulton, A. J M.

In: Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, Vol. 70, No. 1, 01.10.2005, p. 8-12.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Miranda-Palma, Bresta ; Sosenko, Jay M ; Bowker, J. H. ; Mizel, M. S. ; Boulton, A. J M. / A comparison of the monofilament with other testing modalities for foot ulcer susceptibility. In: Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice. 2005 ; Vol. 70, No. 1. pp. 8-12.
@article{8a629d25f6a044a99c4181c1da29b0e4,
title = "A comparison of the monofilament with other testing modalities for foot ulcer susceptibility",
abstract = "We studied the number of testing sites and the proportion needed to be insensate for the optimal assessment of foot ulcer risk with the 10 g monofilament. Also, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of the 10 g monofilament with other methodologies. Fifty-two individuals with either a current foot ulcer, a history of a foot ulcer or the presence of Charcot neuroarthopathy and 51 individuals with no history of any of these conditions were assessed with the 10 g monofilament at four sites on each foot, the 128 Hz tuning fork at the halluces, the Biothesiometer at the halluces and the modified neuropathy disability score. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated for the various modalities. The Biothesiometer and the neuropathy disability score had the highest sensitivities (0.92 for both). The 128 Hz tuning fork tested only at the halluces (criterion: ≥1 insensate site) had the same sensitivity (0.86) as the 10 g monofilament tested at eight sites (criterion: ≥1 insensate site) with similar specificities (0.56 and 0.58, respectively). The Biothesiometer and the modified neuropathy disability score tend to be more sensitive than the 10 g monofilament for the assessment of individuals at risk for foot ulcers. The 128 Hz tuning fork tested at only two sites is as sensitive as the 10 g monofilament tested at eight sites. These data suggest that the 10 g monofilament may not be the optimum methodology for identifying individuals at risk of foot ulcers.",
keywords = "Diabetes mellitus, Foot ulcer, Monofilament, Neuropathy",
author = "Bresta Miranda-Palma and Sosenko, {Jay M} and Bowker, {J. H.} and Mizel, {M. S.} and Boulton, {A. J M}",
year = "2005",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.diabres.2005.02.013",
language = "English",
volume = "70",
pages = "8--12",
journal = "Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice",
issn = "0168-8227",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of the monofilament with other testing modalities for foot ulcer susceptibility

AU - Miranda-Palma, Bresta

AU - Sosenko, Jay M

AU - Bowker, J. H.

AU - Mizel, M. S.

AU - Boulton, A. J M

PY - 2005/10/1

Y1 - 2005/10/1

N2 - We studied the number of testing sites and the proportion needed to be insensate for the optimal assessment of foot ulcer risk with the 10 g monofilament. Also, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of the 10 g monofilament with other methodologies. Fifty-two individuals with either a current foot ulcer, a history of a foot ulcer or the presence of Charcot neuroarthopathy and 51 individuals with no history of any of these conditions were assessed with the 10 g monofilament at four sites on each foot, the 128 Hz tuning fork at the halluces, the Biothesiometer at the halluces and the modified neuropathy disability score. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated for the various modalities. The Biothesiometer and the neuropathy disability score had the highest sensitivities (0.92 for both). The 128 Hz tuning fork tested only at the halluces (criterion: ≥1 insensate site) had the same sensitivity (0.86) as the 10 g monofilament tested at eight sites (criterion: ≥1 insensate site) with similar specificities (0.56 and 0.58, respectively). The Biothesiometer and the modified neuropathy disability score tend to be more sensitive than the 10 g monofilament for the assessment of individuals at risk for foot ulcers. The 128 Hz tuning fork tested at only two sites is as sensitive as the 10 g monofilament tested at eight sites. These data suggest that the 10 g monofilament may not be the optimum methodology for identifying individuals at risk of foot ulcers.

AB - We studied the number of testing sites and the proportion needed to be insensate for the optimal assessment of foot ulcer risk with the 10 g monofilament. Also, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of the 10 g monofilament with other methodologies. Fifty-two individuals with either a current foot ulcer, a history of a foot ulcer or the presence of Charcot neuroarthopathy and 51 individuals with no history of any of these conditions were assessed with the 10 g monofilament at four sites on each foot, the 128 Hz tuning fork at the halluces, the Biothesiometer at the halluces and the modified neuropathy disability score. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated for the various modalities. The Biothesiometer and the neuropathy disability score had the highest sensitivities (0.92 for both). The 128 Hz tuning fork tested only at the halluces (criterion: ≥1 insensate site) had the same sensitivity (0.86) as the 10 g monofilament tested at eight sites (criterion: ≥1 insensate site) with similar specificities (0.56 and 0.58, respectively). The Biothesiometer and the modified neuropathy disability score tend to be more sensitive than the 10 g monofilament for the assessment of individuals at risk for foot ulcers. The 128 Hz tuning fork tested at only two sites is as sensitive as the 10 g monofilament tested at eight sites. These data suggest that the 10 g monofilament may not be the optimum methodology for identifying individuals at risk of foot ulcers.

KW - Diabetes mellitus

KW - Foot ulcer

KW - Monofilament

KW - Neuropathy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=23944492451&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=23944492451&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.diabres.2005.02.013

DO - 10.1016/j.diabres.2005.02.013

M3 - Article

C2 - 16126117

AN - SCOPUS:23944492451

VL - 70

SP - 8

EP - 12

JO - Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

JF - Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

SN - 0168-8227

IS - 1

ER -