2014
DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.2465
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interpreting the results of the Semmes‐Weinstein monofilament test: accounting for false‐positive answers in the international consensus on the diabetic foot protocol by a new model

Abstract: False-positive answers can significantly affect Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test results and the diagnosis of LOPS. A model that accounts for false-positive answers is offered.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
10
0
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
10
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In our sample, monofilament testing resulted pathological for 7% of patients. This tool has probably become the most widely promoted method for diagnosing neuropathy (Singh, Armstrong, & Lipsky, 2000), whose use needs some technical attentions (Armstrong, n.d.) and a critical evaluation of patients' answers (Slater, Koren, Ramot, Buchs, & Rapoport, 2014). It is not clear which number of anatomic sites should be tested from one to ten, but the performance of the test did not seem different in three or four points versus eight and ten points (Baraz, Zarea, Shahbazian, & Latifi, 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our sample, monofilament testing resulted pathological for 7% of patients. This tool has probably become the most widely promoted method for diagnosing neuropathy (Singh, Armstrong, & Lipsky, 2000), whose use needs some technical attentions (Armstrong, n.d.) and a critical evaluation of patients' answers (Slater, Koren, Ramot, Buchs, & Rapoport, 2014). It is not clear which number of anatomic sites should be tested from one to ten, but the performance of the test did not seem different in three or four points versus eight and ten points (Baraz, Zarea, Shahbazian, & Latifi, 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Também foi identificado que o Angiocatéter de 24g X 0,75 pode substituir o monofilamento de SW em caso de falta ou verba para adquiri-lo, na realização do exame e detecção precoce do risco para o pé diabético, tendo uma confiabilidade com valores superiores a 0,98 (p <0,001). No entanto, o padrão ouro permanece o monofilamento de SW, com a sensibilidade relatada de até 0,95 e especificidade de até 0,82 para o diagnóstico de perda da sensibilidade, comprovando a sua eficácia e confiabilidade (18,19,20) .…”
Section: Discussionunclassified
“…10 Despite several studies regarding the points to be investigated, there is no consensus regarding the number of sites where the monofilament should be applied. 11 It is worth mentioning that the objective this study was to evaluate the Loss of Protective Sensitivity (LPS) detected by means of the 10 g monofilament, based on the recommendations given by the Ministry of Health and by the Brazilian Society of Diabetes, which guide risk tracking in the lower limbs of individuals with diabetes. 1,6 Thus, the person who was sensitive to the monofilament at the tested points was considered with no sensorimotor alteration.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%