Performance analysis of noninvasive electrophysiological methods for the assessment of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy in clinical research: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Abstract

Abstract Despite the availability of various clinical trials that used different diagnostic methods to identify diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN), no reliable studies that prove the associations among diagnostic parameters from two different methods are available. Statistically significant diagnostic parameters from various methods can help determine if two different methods can be incorporated together for diagnosing DSPN. In this study, a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed to determine the associations among the different parameters from the most commonly used electrophysiological screening methods in clinical research for DSPN, namely, nerve conduction study (NCS), corneal confocal microscopy (CCM), and electromyography (EMG), for different experimental groups. Electronic databases (e.g., Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar) were searched systematically for articles reporting different screening tools for diabetic peripheral neuropathy. A total of 22 studies involving 2394 participants (801 patients with DSPN, 702 controls, and 891 non-DSPN patients) were reviewed systematically. Meta-analysis was performed to determine statistical significance of difference among four NCS parameters, i.e., peroneal motor nerve conduction velocity, peroneal motor nerve amplitude, sural sensory nerve conduction velocity, and sural sensory nerve amplitude (all p < 0.001); among three CCM parameters, including nerve fiber density, nerve branch density, and nerve fiber length (all p < 0.001); and among four EMG parameters, namely, time to peak occurrence (from 0 to 100% of the stance phase) of four lower limb muscles, including the vastus lateralis (p < 0.001), tibialis anterior (p = 0.63), lateral gastrocnemius (p = 0.01), and gastrocnemius medialis (p = 0.004), and the vibration perception threshold (p < 0.001). Moreover, TSA was conducted to estimate the robustness of the meta-analysis. Most of the parameters showed statistical significance between each other, whereas some were statistically nonsignificant. This meta-analysis and TSA concluded that studies including NCS and CCM parameters were conclusive and robust. However, the included studies on EMG were inconclusive, and additional clinical trials are required.