Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleSystematic Reviews

Accuracy of Monofilament Testing to Diagnose Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review

Jacquelien Dros, Astrid Wewerinke, Patrick J. Bindels and Henk C. van Weert
The Annals of Family Medicine November 2009, 7 (6) 555-558; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1016
Jacquelien Dros
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Astrid Wewerinke
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patrick J. Bindels
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Henk C. van Weert
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

PURPOSE We wanted to summarize evidence about the diagnostic accuracy of the 5.07/10-g monofilament test in peripheral neuropathy.

METHODS We conducted a systematic review of studies in which the accuracy of the 5.07/10-g monofilament was evaluated to detect peripheral neuropathy of any cause using nerve conduction as reference standard. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool.

RESULTS We reviewed 173 titles and abstracts of articles to identify 54 potentially eligible studies, of which 3 were finally selected for data synthesis. All studies were limited to patients with diabetes mellitus and showed limitations according to the QUADAS tool. Sensitivity ranged from 41% to 93% and specificity ranged from 68% to 100%. Because of the heterogenous nature of the studies, a meta-analysis could not be accomplished.

CONCLUSIONS Despite the frequent use of monofilament testing, little can be said about the test accuracy for detecting neuropathy in feet without visible ulcers. Optimal test application and defining a threshold should have priority in evaluating monofilament testing, as this test is advocated in many clinical guidelines. Accordingly, we do not recommend the sole use of monofilament testing to diagnose peripheral neuropathy.

  • Peripheral neuropathy
  • peripheral nervous system diseases
  • monofilament testing
  • Semmes-Weinstein monofilament
  • review, systematic
  • primary health care
  • diabetic foot

INTRODUCTION

Peripheral neuropathy causes loss of sensation and increases the risk of ulceration of the feet. Timely identification of loss of protective sensation may allow preventive intervention. Peripheral neuropathy is a complication in approximately 50% of patients with diabetes, and up to 50% of patients with peripheral neuropathy may not have symptoms.1–3

Several tests are used to detect peripheral neuropathy, including vibration perception, application of warmth and cold, and nerve conduction studies, which are assumed to be the reference standard.4 Electrodiagnostic tests can be complex, expensive, and time consuming, which hampers their widespread use, especially in primary care, where for most patients peripheral neuropathy is diagnosed and treated.

Monofilament testing is an inexpensive, easy-to-use, and portable test for assessing the loss of protective sensation, and it is recommended by several practice guidelines to detect peripheral neuropathy in otherwise normal feet.1,5,6 Monofilaments, often called Semmes-Weinstein mono-filaments, are calibrated, single-fiber nylon threads, identified by values ranging from 1.65 to 6.65, that generate a reproducible buckling stress. The higher the value of the monofilament, the stiffer and more difficult it is to bend. Three monofilaments commonly used to diagnose peripheral neuropathy are the 4.17, 5.07 and 6.10.7–9 Forces required to bend these monofilaments are 1, 10, and 75 g, respectively. The filament is placed on the patient’s skin (usually the feet); when there is considerable loss of sensation, the patient will not be able to detect the presence of the filament at buckling. The 5.07/10-g monofilament has been described as the best indicator to determine loss of protective sensation.7,10–12 The aim of this review was to perform a meta-analysis of studies evaluating monofilament testing with the 5.07/10-g monofilament in diagnosing peripheral neuropathy of the feet from any cause.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from database inception to June 2007 to identify diagnostic accuracy studies of peripheral neuropathy that used monofilament testing. Our search strategy focused on monofilaments, peripheral neuropathy, and diagnostic studies. The complete strategy is available in Supplemental Appendix 1, available at http://annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/7/6/555/DC1). We applied no language restrictions, and we supplemented our searches by manually reviewing the reference lists of eligible studies.

Selection

Two reviewers (A.W., J.D.) independently selected potentially relevant studies by titles and abstracts. We included articles when peripheral neuropathy of the feet was the target condition, monofilament testing with a 5.07/10-g monofilament was the index test, and nerve conduction study was used as reference standard. If the 2 reviewers disagreed, consensus was sought with the help of a third reviewer (H.W.).. Of all possibly relevant articles, the full text was reviewed using the above-mentioned inclusion criteria.

Quality Assessment

The methodological quality of the studies was independently assessed by 2 reviewers (A.W., J.D.) using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) checklist (the QUADAS checklist can be found in Supplemental Appendix 2, available at http://annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/7/6/555/DC1).13 In case of disagreement consensus was reached with a third reviewer (H.W.).

Data Synthesis and Analysis

Sensitivity and specificity were calculated from 2 × 2 tables or retrieved from data available in the primary articles. The aim of the review was to perform a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The study selection process is shown in Figure 1⇓. The characteristics of the final assessed 3 diagnostic accuracy studies are shown in Table 1⇓. All studies appeared to be limited to patients with diabetes mellitus. Sensitivity of the monofilament test ranged from 0.41 to 0.93, and specificity ranged from 0.68 to 1.00. All studies showed methodological limitations that could have inflated sensitivity or specificity. A meta-analysis could not be accomplished because of important differences in the methods of execution of the index test and relevant differences in thresholds defining conduction abnormalities.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Characteristics of the Included Studies, With Nerve Conduction Study as Reference Standard

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Flowchart of the study selection process.

DISCUSSION

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate monofilament testing with the 5.07/10-g monofilament as a diagnostic test for peripheral neuropathy of the feet of any cause. An effective diagnostic test requires an acceptable and well-established sensitivity and an acceptable specificity. Sensitivity in the included studies ranged from 41% to 93%, and specificity ranged from 68% to 100%. These wide ranges are possibly due to differences in application of the monofilament (number and site), interpretation of the monofilament test (definition of thresholds), and differences in study populations. A meta-analysis was not possible because of this clinical heterogeneity.

We believe our identification of studies has been complete, as we applied no language restriction and conducted a sensitive search. The study with the best characteristics (Lee et al14) showed a possibly serious methodological flaw: it was unclear whether the interpretation of the monofilament test was influenced by knowledge of the results of the reference standard and vice versa. In addition, a study population of 37 patients is quite small.

Another problem is the lack of standardization of the monofilament test methods. Different methods are described varying from 1 testing site15,16 to 10 testing sites14 on 1 foot, and there is no evidence or consensus about the most appropriate threshold.

We found various published reference standards for peripheral polyneuropathy, including clinical examination, vibration perception thresholds with biothesiometer/vibrameter/tuning forks, warm/cold detection, and nerve conduction studies. We rejected clinical examination, vibration perception, and warm/cold detection as reference standards: the first 2 because of obvious limitations in sensitivity or specificity,4,17,18 and thermal sense detection because it tests small-fiber neuropathy, whereas applying a monofilament and light touch, such as vibration and nerve conduction, tests for large-fiber neuropathy. Only 4 studies assessed with QUADAS used nerve conduction as the reference standard,14,15,19,20 of which 3 were included in our final selection.

We also rejected studies if the monofilament test was performed on patients who had visible ulcers. In patients with current visible ulcers, the interpretation of the monofilament test and the nerve conduction studies may be influenced by this knowledge (observer or reviewer bias).

We conclude that despite of the frequent use of the (Semmes-Weinstein) monofilament test, little can be said about the test accuracy for detecting neuropathy in feet that do not have visible ulcers, because diagnostic studies with adequate methodology are lacking. Further research on monofilament testing should focus on optimal standard test application procedures (number and sites) and on defining a reproducible threshold.

As this test is already widely used and advocated in many clinical guidelines, especially for diabetic patients, standardization of the method for the mono-filament test and studies to define the sensitivity of this method in clinical practice are important. Meanwhile, the sole use of a monofilament test to diagnose peripheral neuropathy is not recommended. The diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy can be made only after a careful clinical examination with more than 1 test, as recommended by the American Diabetes Association.1 Tests for this clinical examination are vibration perception (using a 128-Hz tuning fork), pressure sensation (using a 10-g monofilament at least at the distal halluces), ankle reflexes, and pinprick.1,2,21 When in doubt, a nerve conduction test might be necessary to establish a firm diagnosis.

Footnotes

  • Conflicts of interest: none reported

  • Funding support: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) (4200.0018) supported this work, but it had no role in the design of the study; data collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or approval of publication of the finished manuscript.

  • Disclaimer: This article does not serve as an endorsement for any particular manufacturer of (Semmes-Weinstein) monofilaments.

  • Received for publication October 9, 2008.
  • Revision received January 23, 2009.
  • Accepted for publication March 2, 2009.
  • © 2009 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes—2008. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(Suppl 1):S12–S54.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    Boulton AJ, Vinik AI, Arezzo JC, et al.; American Diabetes Association. Diabetic neuropathies: a statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(4):956–962.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    Dyck PJ, Kratz KM, Karnes JL, et al. The prevalence by staged severity of various types of diabetic neuropathy, retinopathy, and nephropathy in a population-based cohort: the Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study. Neurology. 1993;43(4):817–824.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    England JD, Gronseth GS, Franklin G, et al. Distal symmetric polyneuropathy: a definition for clinical research: report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Neurology. 2005;64(2):199–207.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    Dutch Association of Neurology (NVN), Dutch Association of Clinical Neurophysiology (NVKNF). Guideline Polyneuropathy of the Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement (CBO). Alphen a/d Rijn, the Netherlands: van Zuiden; 2005.
  6. ↵
    NHS National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Type 2 Diabetes Prevention and Management of Foot Problems, Clinical Guideline 10. London, UK: National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE); 2004.
  7. ↵
    Abbott CA, Carrington AL, Ashe H, et al. The North-West Diabetes Foot Care Study: incidence of, and risk factors for, new diabetic foot ulceration in a community-based patient cohort. Diabet Med. 2002;19(5):377–384.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. Mueller MJ. Identifying patients with diabetes mellitus who are at risk for lower-extremity complications: use of Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments. Phys Ther. 1996;76(1):68–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    Valk GD, de Sonnaville JJ, van Houtum WH, et al. The assessment of diabetic polyneuropathy in daily clinical practice: reproducibility and validity of Semmes Weinstein monofilaments examination and clinical neurological examination. Muscle Nerve. 1997;20(1):116–118.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Birke JA, Sims DS. Plantar sensory threshold in the ulcerative foot. Lepr Rev. 1986;57(3):261–267.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. Holewski JJ, Stess RM, Graf PM, Grunfeld C. Aesthesiometry: quantification of cutaneous pressure sensation in diabetic peripheral neuropathy. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1988;25(2):1–10.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    Singh N, Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA. Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. JAMA. 2005;293(2):217–228.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Dinnes J, Reitsma J, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(25: iii):59–65.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    Lee S, Kim H, Choi S, Park Y, Kim Y, Cho B. Clinical usefulness of the two-site Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test for detecting diabetic peripheral neuropathy. J Korean Med Sci. 2003;18(1):103–107.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    Perkins BA, Olaleye D, Zinman B, Bril V. Simple screening tests for peripheral neuropathy in the diabetes clinic. Diabetes Care. 2001;24(2):250–256.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    Rahman M, Griffin SJ, Rathmann W, Wareham NJ. How should peripheral neuropathy be assessed in people with diabetes in primary care? A population-based comparison of four measures. Diabet Med. 2003;20(5):368–374.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    Franse LV, Valk GD, Dekker JH, Heine RJ, van Eijk JT. ‘Numbness of the feet’ is a poor indicator for polyneuropathy in Type 2 diabetic patients. Diabet Med. 2000;17(2):105–110.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    Kamei N, Yamane K, Nakanishi S, et al. Effectiveness of Semmes-Weinstein monofilament examination for diabetic peripheral neuropathy screening. J Diabetes Complications. 2005;19(1):47–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Shin JB, Seong YJ, Lee HJ, Kim SH, Park JR. Foot screening technique in a diabetic population. J Korean Med Sci. 2000;15(1):78–82.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    Van Brakel WH, Nicholls PG, Das L, et al. The INFIR Cohort Study: assessment of sensory and motor neuropathy in leprosy at baseline. Lepr Rev. 2005;76(4):277–295.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    Meijer JW, Smit AJ, Lefrandt JD, van der Hoeven JH, Hoogenberg K, Links TP. Back to basics in diagnosing diabetic polyneuropathy with the tuning fork! Diabetes Care. 2005;28(9):2201–2205.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 7 (6)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 7 (6)
Vol. 7, Issue 6
1 Nov 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • In Brief
  • Annual Indexes
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Accuracy of Monofilament Testing to Diagnose Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Accuracy of Monofilament Testing to Diagnose Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review
Jacquelien Dros, Astrid Wewerinke, Patrick J. Bindels, Henk C. van Weert
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2009, 7 (6) 555-558; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1016

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Accuracy of Monofilament Testing to Diagnose Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review
Jacquelien Dros, Astrid Wewerinke, Patrick J. Bindels, Henk C. van Weert
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2009, 7 (6) 555-558; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1016
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Vibrotactile perception in the sole of the foot in people with normal glucose tolerance and type 2 diabetes
  • Association between pre-diabetes and microvascular and macrovascular disease in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes
  • Screening for Peripheral Neuropathies in Children With Diabetes: A Systematic Review
  • Peripheral Neuropathy Defined by Monofilament Insensitivity and Diabetes Status: NHANES 1999-2004
  • Validation and comparison of currently available stratification systems for patients with diabetes by risk of foot ulcer development
  • The Ipswich Touch Test: A simple and novel method to identify inpatients with diabetes at risk of foot ulceration
  • Actionable Ideas to Improve Health Care and Health
  • In This Issue: Multifaceted Research
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing Among Older Persons: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies
  • Accuracy of Signs and Symptoms for the Diagnosis of Acute Rhinosinusitis and Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis
  • Employment Interventions in Health Settings: A Systematic Review and Synthesis
Show more Systematic Reviews

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Domains of illness & health:
    • Chronic illness
  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Past Issues in Brief
  • Multimedia
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Multimedia
  • Supplements
  • Online First
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Media
  • Job Seekers

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2023 Annals of Family Medicine