![]() ![]() The 10-site monofilament (К: 0.44–0.77) outperformed the 4-site test (К: 0.34–0.67) and the dampened tuning fork method (К: 0.41–0.49) showed lower intra-rater reliability compared to both conventional (К: 0.52–0.57) and graduated methods (К: 0.50–0.57). ![]() All tests demonstrated acceptable inter-rater reliability ranging from moderate (10-site monofilament, К: 0.54, CI: 0.38–0.70, p = 0.02) to substantial (graduated tuning fork, К: 0.68, CI: 0.41–0.95, p < 0.01). Twenty-four participants (63% male, 100% type 2, 4% with DPN) underwent tuning fork testing and returned for retest. Resultsįifty participants (66% male, 100% type 2, 32% with DPN) underwent monofilament and neurothesiometer testing with 44 returning for the retest. The intra- (Cohen’s К) and inter-rater (Cohen’s or Fleiss’ К) reliability of each test was determined. In a separate cohort, the reliability of a graduated tuning fork as well as two methods of conventional tuning fork (on/off method and dampening method) was undertaken by a new graduate podiatrist and podiatrist with one-year’s clinical experience. Three podiatrists with varying clinical experience tested four- and 10-site, 10 g monofilament and vibration perception threshold (VPT). The aim of this study was to determine the inter- and intra-rater reliability of methods used to test vibration perception and protective sensation in a community-based population of adults with type 2 diabetes. However, there is limited research investigating the reliability of these tests in people with diabetes. ![]() Testing of protective sensation and vibration perception are two of the most commonly used non-invasive methods of screening for diabetes-related peripheral neuropathy (DPN). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |