Article Sidebar
Published:
Mar 15, 2016Article Details
Copyright remains in the Author’s name. The work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial Works License. Authors are required to complete and sign an Author Agreement form that outlines Author and Publisher rights and terms of publication. The Agreement form should be uploaded along with other submissions files and any submission will be considered incomplete without it [forthcoming].
Material submitted for publication in the SAMJ is accepted provided it has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. Please inform the editorial team if the main findings of your paper have been presented at a conference and published in abstract form, to avoid copyright infringement. The SAMJ does not hold itself responsible for statements made by the authors.
Previously published images
If an image/figure has been previously published, permission to reproduce or alter it must be obtained by the authors from the original publisher and the figure legend must give full credit to the original source. This credit should be accompanied by a letter indicating that permission to reproduce the image has been granted to the author/s. This letter should be uploaded as a supplementary file during submission.
Main Article Content
Monofilament assessment of neuropathy in a community diabetes clinic
Abstract
Objective. To compare the detection of diabetic neuropathy using monofilament, cotton wool, pinprick, vibration sense and symptom evaluation.
Setting. The diabetes clinic of a community hospital.
Methods. Two examiners evaluated 89 women with diabetes mellitus (DM) using a 10 g monofilament, cotton wool, pinprick and a 128 Hz tuning fork after completion of a University of Texas subjective peripheral neuropathy verbal questionnaire.
Results. Vibration sense was abnormal in either foot in 8% of subjects. Neuropathy as defined by monofilament, cotton wool and pinprick was present in 26%, 3% and 6% of patients respectively. The respective kappa values (κ) for the comparison between monofilament neuropathy and cotton wool neuropathy, pinprick neuropathy and symptomdefined neuropathy were 0.18, 0.21 and 0.06. The κ-value comparing monofilament and tuning fork-defined neuropathy was 0.24. There was fair agreement between 10 versus 3 sites (κ= 0.60).
Conclusion. More abnormalities were detected using the monofilament compared with cotton wool or pinprick. There was poor concordance between symptoms and clinically detected neuropathy. The ideal number of sites that need to be evaluated is still contentious.
