↓ Skip to main content

Early detection of neuropathy in leprosy: a comparison of five tests for field settings

Overview of attention for article published in Infectious Diseases of Poverty, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Early detection of neuropathy in leprosy: a comparison of five tests for field settings
Published in
Infectious Diseases of Poverty, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40249-017-0330-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Inge Wagenaar, Erik Post, Wim Brandsma, Dan Ziegler, Moshiur Rahman, Khorshed Alam, Jan Hendrik Richardus

Abstract

Early detection and treatment of neuropathy in leprosy is important to prevent disabilities. A recent study showed that the Nerve Conduction Studies (NCS) and Warm Detection Thresholds (WDT) tests can detect leprosy neuropathy the earliest. These two tests are not practical under field conditions, however, because they require climate-controlled rooms and highly trained staff and are expensive. We assessed the usefulness of alternative test methods and their sensitivity and specificity to detect neuropathy at an early stage. Through a literature search we identified five alternative devices that appeared user-friendly, more affordable, portable and/or battery-operated: the Neuropad®, Vibratip™, NC-Stat®DPNCheck™, NeuroQuick and the Thermal Sensibility Tester (TST), assessing respectively sweat function, vibration sensation, nerve conduction, cold sensation and warm sensation. In leprosy patients in Bangladesh, the posterior tibial and sural nerves that tested normal for the monofilament test and voluntary muscle test were assessed with the NCS and WDT as reference standard tests. The alternative devices were then tested on 94 nerves with abnormal WDT and/or NCS results and on 94 unaffected nerves. Sensitivity and specificity were the main outcomes. The NeuroQuick and the TST showed very good sensitivity and specificity. On the sural nerve, the NeuroQuick had both a sensitivity and a specificity of 86%. The TST had a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 82%. Both the NC-Stat®DPNCheck™ and Vibratip™ had a high specificity (88% and 100%), but a low sensitivity (16% and 0%). On the posterior tibial nerve, the NeuroQuick and the TST also showed good sensitivity, but the sensitivity was lower than for the sural nerve. The Neuropad® had a sensitivity of 56% and a specificity of 61%. The NeuroQuick and TST are good candidates for further field-testing for reliability and reproducibility. The feasibility of production on a larger scale should be examined.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 20%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Unspecified 6 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 19 23%
Unknown 21 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Unspecified 6 7%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 26 32%