ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2024
Electrodiagnostic evaluation in diabetes mellitus: A study based on case series in 72 diabetic patients.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the most common complications of diabetes; so, a nerve conduction study (NCS) is conducted to detect the type of neuropathy that is present. To discuss the NCS findings in diabetic patients. An observational study was conducted in the Physiology Department of AIIMS, Bhopal, in collaboration with the Medicine Department of the Institute. Seventy-two diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients were examined using NCS (Nihon Kohden Neuropack XI Machine). Microsoft Excel was utilized for data compilation and result analysis. Based on NCS, 94% of patients were abnormal, and 6% were normal. Of abnormal patients, 89% had asymmetrical involvement, and 5% had symmetrical involvement. About 74% had mixed neuropathy, 11% had motor neuropathy, and 10% had sensory neuropathy. Mixed involvement was seen in 60% of patients and axonal involvement in 35% of patients, and 5% were normal. Lower limb involvement was seen predominately. The most common bilaterally involved motor nerve was the peroneal nerve, seen in 49% of cases, whereas the most common bilaterally involved sensory nerve was the sural nerve involved in 59% of cases. The left tibial nerve was the most common unilaterally involved motor nerve seen in 32% of cases, and the left sural nerve was the most common sensory nerve involved in 54% of cases. Asymmetric sensorimotor involvement with mixed involvement (axonal + demyelinating) was seen in diabetic patients. Peroneal and sural nerves were the most common bilaterally involved motor and sensory nerves, respectively. Similarly, the left tibial and left sural nerves were the most common unilaterally affected motor and sensory nerves, respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.