2020
DOI: 10.1007/s13340-020-00451-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A review of the current evidence on the sensitivity and specificity of the Ipswich touch test for the screening of loss of protective sensation in patients with diabetes mellitus

Abstract: Aims To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the Ipswich touch test for the screening of loss of protective sensation in patients with diabetes mellitus based on the current literature. Methods Three electronic databases were searched for eligible studies that investigated the sensitivity and specificity of the Ipswich touch test. Methodological quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Results Five studies that reported the sensitivity and specificity of the Ipswich touch test were included. When c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Sensitivity assessment points are placed at the tips of the first, third, and fifth toes of both feet, and the other two sites are the dorsum of both halluces. IpTT, compared to the 10 g monofilament and the vibration perception test, has shown good sensitivity and specificity, ranging from 51 to 100% and 90 to 98%, respectively [ 97 ].…”
Section: Diagnosismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sensitivity assessment points are placed at the tips of the first, third, and fifth toes of both feet, and the other two sites are the dorsum of both halluces. IpTT, compared to the 10 g monofilament and the vibration perception test, has shown good sensitivity and specificity, ranging from 51 to 100% and 90 to 98%, respectively [ 97 ].…”
Section: Diagnosismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on current guidelines, there are several criteria for stratifying patients according to their clinical risk for Patients at increased risk for DFS and lower-extremity amputation are recommended to undergo SWME, despite concerns about diagnostic accuracy of SWME during screening for diabetes-related foot disease [104][105][106][107] and questions about the number of sites on the foot that must be assessed [106,107]. In settings where SWME cannot be conducted, the Ipswich Touch Test (IpTT) is a potential substitute assessment that may be used to evaluate LOPS [108][109][110]. However, since no clinical guidelines currently recommend IpTT for risk stratification, more studies are needed to evaluate whether it is an appropriate substitute for SWME.…”
Section: Principle 2: Risk Stratificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If this is not available, an Ipswich test is a reasonable substitute. This test consists of lightly touching the plantar aspect of digits 1, 3, and 5 for 1–2 s. In a metanalysis review of 5 papers, when compared to 10 g monofilament, the sensitivity of the Ipswich test ranged from 51% to 83%, and the specificity range was 96.4%–98% [91].…”
Section: The Magnitude Of Cardiometabolic Risks In the Uaementioning
confidence: 99%