Subjective versus objective assessment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Marwa Asar, M. Mansour, Nader Eleneen, Rania Bahriz
{"title":"Subjective versus objective assessment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy","authors":"Marwa Asar, M. Mansour, Nader Eleneen, Rania Bahriz","doi":"10.4103/ejode.ejode_5_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the commonest chronic complications of diabetes mellitus. It is documented that 26.4% of the cases with type 2 diabetes mellitus have painful DPN, whereas approximately half of the DPN cases may not have symptoms. Although neurophysiologic studies represent an objective and sensitive tool in the diagnosis of diabetic neuropathy, they remain limited owing to many factors; thus, there is a need to develop simpler tools that can fit into this gap, hence the development of different neuropathy scores. Aim To evaluate different tools and methods either subjective or objective in diagnosis of painful DPN in type 2 diabetic patients. Patients and methods We included 200 cases with type 2 diabetes mellitus recruited from the diabetes and diabetic neuropathy clinics in Mansoura Specialized Medical Hospital fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria. They were divided into two groups: group 1 included 150 diabetic cases with painful peripheral diabetic neuropathy, and group 2 included 50 diabetic cases without neuropathy. Results Glycated hemoglobin was significantly elevated in the peripheral neuropathy group compared with the other group (8.24 vs. 7.27%; P<0.001). Regarding neutrophil/lymphocytic ratio in our study, it was not significantly different between the two groups (P=0581). It had mean values of 2.17 and 2.1 in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Conclusion Higher grades of the scores performed in this study were associated with a severe form of neuropathy. Both duration of diabetes and glycated hemoglobin levels had a significant positive correlation with these scores. Regarding neutrophil/lymphocytic ratio in our study, it did not show a significant difference between the two groups.","PeriodicalId":260758,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Journal of Obesity, Diabetes and Endocrinology","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Journal of Obesity, Diabetes and Endocrinology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ejode.ejode_5_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the commonest chronic complications of diabetes mellitus. It is documented that 26.4% of the cases with type 2 diabetes mellitus have painful DPN, whereas approximately half of the DPN cases may not have symptoms. Although neurophysiologic studies represent an objective and sensitive tool in the diagnosis of diabetic neuropathy, they remain limited owing to many factors; thus, there is a need to develop simpler tools that can fit into this gap, hence the development of different neuropathy scores. Aim To evaluate different tools and methods either subjective or objective in diagnosis of painful DPN in type 2 diabetic patients. Patients and methods We included 200 cases with type 2 diabetes mellitus recruited from the diabetes and diabetic neuropathy clinics in Mansoura Specialized Medical Hospital fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria. They were divided into two groups: group 1 included 150 diabetic cases with painful peripheral diabetic neuropathy, and group 2 included 50 diabetic cases without neuropathy. Results Glycated hemoglobin was significantly elevated in the peripheral neuropathy group compared with the other group (8.24 vs. 7.27%; P<0.001). Regarding neutrophil/lymphocytic ratio in our study, it was not significantly different between the two groups (P=0581). It had mean values of 2.17 and 2.1 in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Conclusion Higher grades of the scores performed in this study were associated with a severe form of neuropathy. Both duration of diabetes and glycated hemoglobin levels had a significant positive correlation with these scores. Regarding neutrophil/lymphocytic ratio in our study, it did not show a significant difference between the two groups.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
疼痛性糖尿病周围神经病变的主观与客观评价
糖尿病周围神经病变是糖尿病最常见的慢性并发症之一。据文献记载,26.4%的2型糖尿病患者有疼痛的DPN,而大约一半的DPN病例可能没有症状。虽然神经生理学研究是诊断糖尿病神经病变的客观和敏感的工具,但由于许多因素,它们仍然受到限制;因此,有必要开发更简单的工具来填补这一空白,从而开发出不同的神经病变评分。目的探讨主客观诊断2型糖尿病患者疼痛性DPN的不同工具和方法。患者和方法我们从曼苏拉专科医院糖尿病和糖尿病神经病变门诊招募200例符合纳入和排除标准的2型糖尿病患者。将患者分为两组:1组150例伴有疼痛性糖尿病周围神经病变,2组50例无神经病变。结果周围神经病变组糖化血红蛋白明显升高(8.24% vs. 7.27%;P < 0.001)。在我们的研究中,中性粒细胞/淋巴细胞比率在两组之间无显著差异(P=0581)。1组和2组的平均值分别为2.17和2.1。结论:在这项研究中,较高的评分与严重的神经病变有关。糖尿病持续时间和糖化血红蛋白水平与这些评分均有显著正相关。在我们的研究中,中性粒细胞/淋巴细胞比率在两组之间没有明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Immunostimulatory effect of ketogenic diet in cyclophosphamide-induced immunosuppression in adult albino rats Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and persistent hyperparathyroidism in an Egyptian cohort of renal transplant recipients: a cross-sectional study Relationship of neck circumference to some cardiometabolic risk parameters: a cross-sectional study among obese adult Egyptians Study of the possible relations between vitamin D, telomere length, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in older people Urinary levels of podocalyxin as a marker for podocytopathy in patients with metabolic syndrome having high body mass index: a diagnostic test accuracy study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1