Review Article
Diagnostic Accuracy of Monofilament Tests for Detecting Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Table 3
Moderator variables.
| | Study (author year) | Diabetes duration (years)
Mean ± SD | Type of the diabetes
(% n) | Techniques | Geography |
| | Olaleye et al., 2001 [25] | 11.5 ± NR | Type 1 (17.4%) | Yes-no | Canada | | Perkins et al., 2001 [26] | 12.53 ± 11.47 | Type 1 (17.4%) | Yes-no | Canada | | Type 2 (69.7%) | | NGT (12.9%) | | Lee et al., 2003 [27] | 14.8 ± 6.7 | Type 2 | Yes-no | Korea | | Mythili et al., 2010 [28] | 6.9 ± NR | Type 2 | Yes-no | India | | Perkins et al., 2010 [29] | 13 ± 9 | Type 2 (84%) | Forced choice (0, 0.5, 1) | Canada | | Pambianco et al., 2011 [30] | 33.6 ± 5.2() | Type 1 | Yes-no | USA | | 38.3 ± 7.2() | | Pourhamidi et al., 2014 [31] | 7.2 ± 0.9 | NGT (33%) | Unknown | Sweden | | IGT (24%) | | Type 2 (43%) | | Baraz et al., 2014 [32] | 6.1 ± 7.7 | Type 2 | Yes-no & point the site | Iran | | Ruhdorfer et al., 2015 [33] | 12.2 ± 10.3 | Type 1 (7.3%) | Yes-no | Austria | | Type 2 (92.7%) |
|
|
NGT: normal glucose tolerance; IGT: impaired glucose tolerance; NR: not reported in the paper.
|
