Accuracy of Ipswich Touch Test (IpTT) to detect small fiber neuropathy and large fiber neuropathy as a risk factor of diabetic foot ulcers in public health centers

Basir, Ita Sulistiani; Syam, Yuliana; Yusuf, Saldy; Sandi, Serlina

doi:10.1016/j.enfcli.2019.07.108

Cited by 7 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Basir et al explored the accuracy of using IPTT in detecting neuropathy in patients with small fibre and large fibre neuropathy, and found that there was no difference between IPTT and the gold standard, indicating that IPTT can be used as an alternative assessment method. 25 Therefore, the current evidence shows that IPTT has a high screening value for DPN and can be used for preliminary screening of DPN in areas lacking more advanced equipment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“… 24 Compared with 128 Hz tuning fork, the sensitivity and specificity of IPTT were only 0.4 and 0.27, respectively. 25 Compared with ankle reflex, IPTT had a sensitivity of 0.2 and a specificity of 0.97 ( table 1 ). 25 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 25 Compared with ankle reflex, IPTT had a sensitivity of 0.2 and a specificity of 0.97 ( table 1 ). 25 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies have disputed the diagnostic value of IPTT, mainly due to the use of different test methods, such as VPT, NDS, pinprick, tuning fork 128 Hz, and ankle reﬂex, as the reference standard, compared with NDS, acupuncture, 128 Hz tuning fork, and ankle reflex, IPTT has higher screening accuracy when 10g-MF and VPT were used as the reference standard. 10 19 20 Basir et al 25 observed that when the 128 Hz tuning fork was used as a reference standard, the sensitivity and specificity of IPTT were only 40% and 27%, respectively. This may be due to the lower predictive level of the tuning fork compared with the monofilament.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, 5 studies with 6 datasets were included in the final meta-analysis, involving a total of 1162 patients. [22][23][24][25][26] Characteristics and quality of the included studies The characteristics of the included studies are presented in table 1. The seven studies included a total of 1510 participants with diabetes and were published between 2011 and 2020.…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Application of the Ipswich Touch Test for diabetic peripheral neuropathy screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Zhao

Zhou

et al. 2021

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveDiabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the most important risk factors of diabetic foot ulcers, and early screening and treatment of DPN are crucial. The Ipswich Touch Test (IPTT) is a new method for screening for DPN and, compared with traditional methods, is more simple to operate and requires no equipment. However, the screening accuracy of IPTT in patients with DPN has not been well characterised. We aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to characterise the sensitivity and specificity of IPTT compared with traditional methods and to understand the potential screening value of IPTT.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database up to 16 April 2020.MethodsStata V.15.1 software was used for analysis, and the screening value of IPTT in DPN was described using 10 g monofilament (10g-MF), neuropathy disability scores (NDS), Pin prick, 128 Hz tuning fork, and ankle reflex as reference standards. Sensitivity, specificity and other measures of accuracy of IPTT for screening DPN were pooled based on a quality effects model. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (42020168420).ResultsOf the 441 records retrieved, 7 studies were evaluated for the screening value of IPTT. Five studies with 10g-MF as the reference standard were included in the meta-analysis, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.77 (95％CI 0.69–0.84) and 0.96(95％CI 0.93–0.98), respectively, and the area under curve was 0.897. Compared with vibration perception threshold, IPTT showed a sensitivity between 0.76 and 1, and a specificity between 0.90 and 0.97. Compared with NDS, IPTT showed a sensitivity between 0.53 and 1, and a specificity between 0.90 and 0.97. Compared with Pin prick, IPTT showed a sensitivity and specificity of 0.8 and 0.88, respectively. Compared with 128 Hz tuning fork, IPTT showed a sensitivity and specificity of 0.4 and 0.27, respectively. Compared with ankle reflex, IPTT had a sensitivity of 0.2 and a specificity of 0.97.ConclusionsIPTT shows a high degree of agreement with other commonly used screening tools for DPN screening. It can be used clinically, especially in remote areas and in primary medical institutions, and by self-monitoring patients. More high-quality studies are needed to assess and promote more effective screening practices.PROSPERO registration numberRegistration Number is CRD (42020168420).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%