Evidence mapPaperPMID 33355206Full record

ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2020

Corneal confocal microscopy compared with quantitative sensory testing and nerve conduction for diagnosing and stratifying the severity of diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

Maryam Ferdousi, Alise Kalteniece, Shazli Azmi, Ioannis N Petropoulos, Anne Worthington, Luca D'Onofrio, Shaishav Dhage, Georgios Ponirakis, Uazman Alam, Andrew Marshall and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Ocular changes as potential biomarkers for early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Maryam FerdousiDivision of Cardiovascular Sciences, Cardiac Centre, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Alise KaltenieceDivision of Cardiovascular Sciences, Cardiac Centre, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Shazli AzmiDivision of Cardiovascular Sciences, Cardiac Centre, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Ioannis N PetropoulosResearch Division, Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar, Doha, Qatar.
Anne WorthingtonDivision of Cardiovascular Sciences, Cardiac Centre, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Luca D'OnofrioDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome La Sapienza, Roma, Lazio, Italy.
Shaishav DhageDivision of Cardiovascular Sciences, Cardiac Centre, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Georgios PonirakisMedicine, Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar, Doha, Qatar.ORCID 0000-0002-6936-1248
Uazman AlamDivision of Cardiovascular Sciences, Cardiac Centre, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Andrew MarshallDivision of Cardiovascular Sciences, Cardiac Centre, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Catharina G FaberDepartment of Neurology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands.
Giuseppe LauriaDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, Università di Milano - Fondazione I.R.C.C.S. Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan, Italy.
Handrean SoranDivision of Cardiovascular Sciences, Cardiac Centre, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Rayaz A MalikDivision of Cardiovascular Sciences, Cardiac Centre, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK ram2045@qatar-med.cornell.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7188-8903
University of Manchester · GBWeill Cornell Medical College in Qatar · QAFondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta · ITMaastricht University · NLSapienza University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDiabetic neuropathy can be diagnosed and assessed using a number of techniques including corneal confocal microscopy (CCM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsWe have undertaken quantitative sensory testing, nerve conduction studies and CCM in 143 patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes without neuropathy (n=51), mild neuropathy (n=47) and moderate to severe neuropathy (n=45) and age-matched controls (n=30).

resultsVibration perception threshold (p<0.0001), warm perception threshold (WPT) (p<0.001), sural nerve conduction velocity (SNCV) (p<0.001), corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD) (p<0.0001), corneal nerve branch density (CNBD) (p<0.0001), corneal nerve fiber length (CNFL) (p=0.002), inferior whorl length (IWL) (p=0.0001) and average nerve fiber length (ANFL) (p=0.0001) showed a progressive abnormality with increasing severity of diabetic neuropathy. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for the diagnosis of diabetic neuropathy showed comparable performance in relation to the area under the curve (AUC) but differing sensitivities and specificities for vibration perception threshold (AUC 0.79, sensitivity 55%, specificity 90%), WPT (AUC 0.67, sensitivity 50%, specificity 76%), cold perception threshold (AUC 0.64, sensitivity 80%, specificity 47%), SNCV (AUC 0.70, sensitivity 76%, specificity 54%), CNFD (AUC 0.71, sensitivity 58%, specificity 83%), CNBD (AUC 0.70, sensitivity 69%, specificity 65%), CNFL (AUC 0.68, sensitivity 64%, specificity 67%), IWL (AUC 0.72, sensitivity 70%, specificity 65%) and ANFL (AUC 0.72, sensitivity 71%, specificity 66%).

conclusionThis study shows that CCM identifies early and progressive corneal nerve loss at the inferior whorl and central cornea and has comparable utility with quantitative sensory testing and nerve conduction in the diagnosis of diabetic neuropathy.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diabetic NeuropathiesCorneaHumansMicroscopy, ConfocalNeural Conductioncorneadiabetes complicationsdiabetic neuropathiesdiagnosis

Identifiers

PMID33355206
PMCPMC7754626
OpenAlexW3116593356

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.