Diabetic neuropathy (DN) is the presence of signs and symptoms that are suggestive of neuropathy in diabetic patients, after excluding other possible causes of nerve damage. Diabetic neuropathy and its complications affect the quality of life, sleep patterns, and daily activities of the patient. Up to date no FDA-approved reversing treatment was found. Studies showed that neurotropic B vitamins (vitamin B1, B6 and B12) had an important role in nerve regeneration and included in prescriptions of DN. However, these vitamins were not included in the guidelines of DN management. The aim of this review is to explore the role of neurotropic B vitamins in the treatment of DN including the mechanism of action and the evidence supporting their use. Review of the literature revealed many clinical trials examining the effect of these vitamins (alone or combined) for DN. These vitamins and/or their derivatives had well-illustrated disease-modifying mechanisms on DN. However, larger randomized clinical trials for longer periods are needed to approve their use in DN and to be included in national and international guidelines. This was hindered by the fact that vitamins are non-patentable and therefore fewer funds would be allocated for large randomized clinical trials.

Background: Diabetic neuropathy (DN) is the most common complication of diabetes mellitus causing increased morbidity and mortality. Although international guidelines did not include vitamins and dietary supplements in any line of management, these agents were prescribed by a significant number of physicians either as preventive or treatment of DN. This study aimed to develop a validated questionnaire that examines the physicians’ perception and practice towards prescribing vitamins or dietary supplements for DN treatment. Method: The questionnaire was developed upon literature review via PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The questionnaire was revised upon experts’ views and opinions. The constructed questionnaire was validated by the means of content validity and internal consistency. Finally, the developed questionnaire was piloted in a small representative sample of the original future aimed research target population, to test its applicability and feasibility. Results: A total of 19 items questionnaire were developed in two domains (perception and practice). Content validity analysis results met a satisfactory level, in which the S-CVI/UA value was 0.84 and 0.89 for clarity and relevance respectively. The questionnaire also showed good reliability, in which the Cronbach’s alphas was 0.824. Conclusion: This study showed the ability to construct a questionnaire with good levels of content validity and reliability that can cover different aspects of the current state of perception and practice among physicians regarding the management of DN.