Values and diagnostic accuracy of sensory nerve action potentials in control participants and participants with diabetes with and without clinical diabetic neuropathy, based on neuropathy scale measurements

• Published in: Brain and behavior Vol. 14; no. 2; pp. e3423 - n/a
• Main Authors: Abuzinadah, Ahmad R., Alrawaili, Moafaq S., Alshareef, Aysha A., Alkully, Hussien S., Milyani, Haneen, Alamri, Bashayr, Alshora, Weam, Bamaga, Ahmed K.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01-02-2024; John Wiley and Sons Inc; Wiley
• Subjects: Accuracy; Data collection; Diabetes; Diabetic neuropathy; diagnosis; neuropathy; Original; Patients; Peripheral neuropathy; screening; sensitivity; Sensitivity analysis; diagnosis; neuropathy; screening; sensitivity; diabetes
• DOI: 10.1002/brb3.3423
• EISSN: 2162-3279

Background
The assessment of the normative values of sensory nerve action potentials (SNAP) and their diagnostic accuracies using validated neuropathy‐assessment tools to classify participants into groups with and without neuropathy was not previously described in the literature.
Methods
The Utah Early Neuropathy Scale (UENS), Michigan neuropathy‐screening instrument, and nerve conduction data were collected prospectively. We described and compared the values of the sural, superficial peroneal sensory (SPS), and superficial radial SNAP amplitude in different age groups for three groups. Group 1 (G1)—control participants (UENS <5), group 2 (G2)—participants with diabetes without clinical diabetic neuropathy (UENS <5), and group 3 (G3)—participants with clinical diabetic neuropathy (UENS ≥5). We also described the diagnostic accuracy of single‐nerve amplitude and a combined sensory polyneuropathy index (CSPNI) that consists of four total points (one point for each of the following nerves if their amplitude was <25% lower limit of normal: right sural, left sural, right SPS, and left SPS potentials).
Results
We assessed 135 participants, including 41, 37, and 57 participants in G1, G2, and G3, respectively, with age median (interquartile ranges) of 51 (45–56), 47 (38–56), and 54 (51–61) years, respectively, whereas 19 (46.3%), 18 (48.7%), and 32 (56.14%) of them were males, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) scores were 68.4%, 92.3%, 86.7%, and 80% for the sural amplitude; 86%, 58.3%, 62%, and 84% for the SPS amplitude; 66.7%, 94.4%, 90.5%, and 78.2% for the CSPNI of 3; and 54.4%, 98.6%, 96.9%, and 73.2% for the CSPNI of 4, respectively.
Conclusion
Sural nerve had a high specificity for neuropathy; however, the CSPNI had the highest specificity and PPV, whereas the SPS had the highest sensitivity and NPV.
We described the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive values of sensory nerve action potentials. We used a validated neuropathy scales to classify our participants into neuropathy and no neuropathy groups. These diagnostic accuracies were not reported in the previous literature.