SynthesisDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2025
A systematic review of outcomes measured in interventional trials in people with diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy.
Synthesis in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of outcomes measured in interventional trials in people with diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsDiabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) is the most common chronic complication of diabetes. Heterogeneity in outcome measures across DSPN trials may have hindered the development of novel therapies. No core outcome set (COS) exists to standardise DSPN trial outcomes. This systematic review aims to identify and synthesise outcomes reported in DSPN interventional trials.
methodsThe protocol was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023408403) and reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Prospective DSPN interventional trials since 2018 were searched with a predefined strategy, and primary and secondary verbatim outcomes were extracted, merged and organised using a taxonomy recommended by Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET). Outcome measuring tools were summarised descriptively.
resultsOf the 4851 abstracts screened, 184 were eligible (protocols, n = 24; ongoing trials, n = 48 completed trials without published results, n = 11; published trials with results, n = 101). Pain was the most common primary (n = 127) and secondary (n = 64) unique outcome. By taxonomy, nervous system outcomes were the most common primary (n = 174) and secondary (n = 89) measure. The most common measuring tools were the visual analogue scale (n = 37), numerical rating scale (n = 37) and nerve conduction study (n = 34). Over 30 distinct measuring tools were utilised to measure nervous system outcomes.
conclusionsDespite consistent outcome reporting, variability in measuring tools highlights the need for a COS with standardised tools. Patient-reported outcomes were more common than assessor-reported outcomes; however, using both may reduce response variability and bias. These findings will inform a future Delphi process to develop a COS for DSPN.
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.