Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 14, Issue 7, pp 418–424 | Cite as

Clinical examination for the detection of protective sensation in the feet of diabetic patients

  • Marek Smieja
  • Dereck L. Hunt
  • David Edelman
  • Edward Etchells
  • Jacques Cornuz
  • David L. Simel
  • the International Cooperative Group for Clinical Examination Research
Original Articles

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We compared the reproducibility and accuracy of conventional clinical examination of the diabetic foot to monofilament examination. We also sought to simplify the monofilament examination by reducing it to fewer touch points.

METHODS: In a cross-sectional study at 10 centers in the United States, Canada, and Switzerland, general internists and residents performed a structured history and physical examination for neuropathy on the feet of diabetic patients. Independent examination by two observers included monofilament sensation, pinprick, vibration, position sense, and ankle reflexes.

MAIN RESULTS: A total of 304 patients were examined by at least one practitioner, and 200 received duplicate examinations. Monofilament examination and ankle reflexes had the best reproducibility, with moderate agreement (κ=0.59); pinprick, position, and vibration sense had fair agreement (κ=0.28–0.36). No component of the history or physical examination, singly or in aggregate, was both sensitive and specific for identifying a patient with an abnormal monofilament examination. A simplified monofilament examination using only 4 sites per foot (total 8 sites) detected 90% of patients with an abnormal 16-site monofilament evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS: Conventional clinical examination had low reproducibility and correlated poorly with monofilament examination for the identification of the at-risk patient. The Semmes-Weinstein monofilament examination, a reproduible, valid, and generalizable test of foot sensation, is recommended as the screening procedure of choice for examining diabetic feet.

Key Words

diabetes foot ulcer diabetic neuropathy clinical examination screening 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bild DE, Selby JV, Sinnock P, Browner WS, Braveman P, Showstack JA. Lower-extremity amputation in people with diabetes: epidemiology and prevention. Diabetes Care. 1989;12:24–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boulton AJM. The diabetic foot: neuropathic in a etiology? Diabetic Med. 1990;7:852–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harati Y. Diabetes and the nervous system. Endocrinology and Metab Clin of North Am. 1996;25:325–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pecoraro RE, Reiber GE, Burgess EM. Pathways to diabetic limb amputation: basis for prevention. Diabetes Care. 1990;131:513–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nelson RG, Gohdes DM, Everhart JE, Hartner JA et al. Lower-extremity amputations in NIDDM: 12-yr follow-up study in Pima Indians. Diabetes Care. 1988;11:8–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borssen B, Bergenheim T, Lithner F. Preventive treatment of foot deformities in type I diabetic patients aged 15–50 years—an epidemiological and prospective study. J Intern Med. 1996;240:219–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caputo GM, Cavanagh PR, Ulbrecht JS, Gibbons GW, Karchmer AW. Assessment and management of foot disease in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:854–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Sackett DL for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature, III: how to use an article about a diagnostic test, A: are the results of the study valid? JAMA. 1994;271:389–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Sackett DL for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature, III: how to use an article about a diagnostic test, B: what are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? JAMA. 1994;271:703–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Birke JA, Sims DS. Plantar sensory threshold in the ulcerative foot. Lepr Rev. 1986;57:261–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boyko EJ, Smith DG, Ahroni JH. A prospective study of risk factors for diabetic foot ulcer. Rehab R&D Prog Report. 1994;318–9.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holewski JJ, Stess RM, Graf PM, Grunfeld C. Aesthesiometry: quantification of cutaneous pressure sensation in diabetic peripheral neuropathy. J Rehab Res Dev. 1988;25:1–10.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McNeely MJ, Boyko EJ, Ahroni JH, et al. The independent contributions of diabetic neuropathy and vasculopathy in foot ulceration: how great are the risks? Diabetes Care. 1995;18:216–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olmos PR, Cataland S, O’Dorisio TM, Casey CA, Smead WL, Simon SR. The Semmes-Weinstein monofilament as a potential predictor of foot ulceration in patients with noninsulin-dependent diabetes. Am J Med Sci. 1995;309:76–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sosenko JM, Kato M, Soto R, Bild DE. Comparison of quantitative sensory-threshold measures for their association with foot ulceration in diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 1990;13:1057–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gohdes D, Rith-Najarian S. Foot disease in diabetes. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:269–70. Letter.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rith-Najarian SJ, Stolusky T, Gohdes DM. Identifying diabetic patients at high risk for lower-extremity amputation in a primary health care setting: a prospective evaluation of simple screening criteria. Diabetes Care. 1992;15:1386–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCabe CJ, Stevenson RC, Dolan AM. Evaluation of a diabetic foot screening and protection programme. Diabetic Med. 1998;15:80–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Duffy JC, Patout CA. Management of the insensitive foot in diabetes: lessons learned from Hansen’s disease. Military Med. 1990;155:575–9.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mueller MJ. Identifying patients with diabetes mellitus who are at risk for lower-extremity complications: use of Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments. Phys Ther. 1996;76:68–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Diamond JE, Mueller MJ, Delitto A, Sinacore DR. Reliability of a diabetic foot evaluation. Phys Ther. 1989;69:797–802.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klenerman L, McCabe C, Cogley D, Crerand S, Laing P, White M. Screening for patients at risk of diabetic foot ulceration in a general diabetic outpatient clinic. Diabetic Med. 1996;13:561–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Valk GD, de Sonnaville JJJ, vanHoutum WH, et al. The assessment of diabetic polyneuropathy in daily clinical practice: reproducibility and validity of Semmes Weinstein monofilaments examination and clinical neurological examination. Muscle & Nerve. 1997;20:116–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Adler AI, Boyko EJ, Ahroni JH, Stensel V, Forsberg RC, Smith DG. Risk factors for diabetic peripheral sensory neuropathy: results of the Seattle Prospective Diabetic Foot Study. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:1162–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sackett DL. A primer on the precision and accuracy of the clinical examination. JAMA. 1992;267:2638–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Edelman D, Sanders L, Pogach LM. Reproducibility and accuracy among primary care providers of a screening examination for foot ulcer risk among diabetic patients. Preventive Med. 1998;27(1):274–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The prevention and treatment of complications of diabetes mellitus: a guide for primary care practitioners. January 1991.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mayfield JA, Strand T, Toya AR. A call for specific codes for diabetes foot and eye care. Diabetes Care. 1995;18(3):418–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marek Smieja
    • 1
  • Dereck L. Hunt
    • 1
  • David Edelman
    • 2
  • Edward Etchells
    • 3
  • Jacques Cornuz
    • 4
  • David L. Simel
    • 2
  • the International Cooperative Group for Clinical Examination Research
  1. 1.the Department of Medicine, McMaster University Medical CentreHamilton Health Sciences CorporationHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Department of MedicineDuke University Medical CenterDurham
  3. 3.Department of Medicine, The Toronto HospitalUniversity of TorontoCanada
  4. 4.Universite de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations