Sensitivity and specificity of high frequency ultrasound score (DCEC) in diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Abstract

Objectives To summarize the ultrasonic characteristics of peripheral nerve damage in type 2 diabetes and to verify the diagnostic value of DCEC score for DPN. Methods A total of 289 patients with type 2 diabetes evaluated peripheral neuropathy with neuroultrasound and nerve conduction at the Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University from June 2016 to June 2020. According to the diagnostic criteria from 2017 guidelines of China, 289 patients with type 2 diabetes were divided into three groups: DPN group: 203 cases; subclinical group: 48 cases; and non-DPN group: 38 cases. Kruskal Wallis test was used to identify the differences and characteristics of ultrasound scores between the all groups. The best cut-off value, sensitivity and specificity of DCEC score were obtained by receiver operator characteristic curve. Taking the diagnostic standard of diabetes peripheral neuropathy as the “gold standard”, the best diagnostic threshold, sensitivity and specificity were obtained by drawing the ROC curve of DCEC score, and then the diagnostic value of DCEC score for DPN was verified Results Compared with non-DPN group, DCEC score in DPN group was significantly higher (P < 0.05). Otherwise,according to the ROC curve, the best cut-off value of DCEC score for DPN diagnosis was 12.5 (sensitivity 69.7%, specificity 71.1%). Conclusions The DCEC score system can effectively diagnose DPN with length-dependence,mainly including the increase of definition score.

Exploring the Diagnostic Value of High-Frequency Ultrasound Technology for Subcutaneous Lipohypertrophy in Diabetes Patients Receiving Insulin Injections

“…By observing indicators such as the longitudinal diameter, width, and depth of the subcutaneous fat layer, doctors can have a more comprehensive understanding of lipohypertrophy. 16 This quantitative data provides a more scientific basis for formulating individualized treatment plans, assisting in timely adjustments of insulin injection sites, and reducing the risk of complications. When comparing the detection rates and the number of detected sites between the two groups, the research group demonstrated a more pronounced advantage.…”