Evidence mapPaperPMID 34351711Full record

SynthesisJournal of diabetes investigation2022

Corneal confocal microscopy for the diagnosis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hoda Gad, Ioannis N Petropoulos, Adnan Khan, Georgios Ponirakis, Ross MacDonald, Uazman Alam, Rayaz A Malik

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of diabetes investigation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Hoda GadDepartment of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Doha, Qatar.
Ioannis N PetropoulosDepartment of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Doha, Qatar.
Adnan KhanDepartment of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4647-6672
Georgios PonirakisDepartment of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6936-1248
Ross MacDonaldLibrary Services, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Doha, Qatar.
Uazman AlamDiabetes and Neuropathy Research, Department of Eye and Vision Sciences and Pain Research Institute, Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease, University of Liverpool and Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Rayaz A MalikDepartment of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7188-8903
Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar · QAUniversity of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Qatar Foundation through the Biomedical Research Program BMRP- 5726113101
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCorneal confocal microscopy (CCM) is a rapid non-invasive ophthalmic imaging technique that identifies corneal nerve fiber damage. Small studies suggest that CCM could be used to assess patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN).

aimTo undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the diagnostic utility of CCM for sub-clinical DPN (DPN DATA SOURCES: Databases (PubMed, Embase, Central, ProQuest) were searched for studies using CCM in patients with diabetes up to April 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they reported on at least one CCM parameter in patients with diabetes. DATA EXTRACTION: Corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD), corneal nerve branch density (CNBD), corneal nerve fiber length (CNFL), and inferior whorl length (IWL) were compared between patients with diabetes with and without DPN and controls. Meta-analysis was undertaken using RevMan V.5.3. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty-eight studies including ~4,000 participants were included in this meta-analysis. There were significant reductions in CNFD, CNBD, CNFL, and IWL in DPN

conclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis shows that CCM detects small nerve fiber loss in subclinical and clinical DPN and concludes that CCM has good diagnostic utility in DPN.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCorneaDiabetic NeuropathiesFemaleHumansMaleMicroscopy, ConfocalMiddle AgedNerve FibersPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsCCMDiabetic peripheral neuropathyDiagnosis

Identifiers

PMID34351711
PMCPMC8756328
OpenAlexW3190178590

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.