195 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10417599)
1. Clinical examination for the detection of protective sensation in the feet of diabetic patients. International Cooperative Group for Clinical Examination Research.
Smieja M; Hunt DL; Edelman D; Etchells E; Cornuz J; Simel DL
J Gen Intern Med; 1999 Jul; 14(7):418-24. PubMed ID: 10417599
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Monofilament assessment of neuropathy in a community diabetes clinic.
Rheeder P; van Wyk JT; Hokken JW; Hueting HM
S Afr Med J; 2002 Sep; 92(9):715-9. PubMed ID: 12382357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Interpreting the results of the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test: accounting for false-positive answers in the international consensus on the diabetic foot protocol by a new model.
Slater RA; Koren S; Ramot Y; Buchs A; Rapoport MJ
Diabetes Metab Res Rev; 2014 Jan; 30(1):77-80. PubMed ID: 23996640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The prevalence of peripheral neuropathy severe enough to cause a loss of protective sensation in a population-based sample of people with known and newly detected diabetes in Barbados: a cross-sectional study.
Adams OP; Herbert JR; Howitt C; Unwin N
Diabet Med; 2019 Dec; 36(12):1629-1636. PubMed ID: 31094005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 4.5-gram monofilament sensation beneath both first metatarsal heads indicates protective foot sensation in diabetic patients.
Saltzman CL; Rashid R; Hayes A; Fellner C; Fitzpatrick D; Klapach A; Frantz R; Hillis SL
J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2004 Apr; 86(4):717-23. PubMed ID: 15069135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Sensory thresholds of normal human feet.
Jeng C; Michelson J; Mizel M
Foot Ankle Int; 2000 Jun; 21(6):501-4. PubMed ID: 10884110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Pilot study on the significance of random intrasite placement of the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament.
Slater RA; Koren S; Ramot Y; Buchs A; Rapoport MJ
Diabetes Metab Res Rev; 2013 Mar; 29(3):235-8. PubMed ID: 23283830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The utility of Vibratip in accurate identification of loss of protective sensation in the contralateral foot of patients admitted with a diabetic foot ulcer.
Pasangha E; George B; Jayalakshmi V; Devi P; Ayyar V; Bantwal G
Diabetes Metab Syndr; 2021; 15(3):857-862. PubMed ID: 33873055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Reliability and responsiveness of an 18 site, 10-g monofilament examination for assessment of protective foot sensation.
Young D; Schuerman S; Flynn K; Hartig K; Moss D; Altenburger B
J Geriatr Phys Ther; 2011; 34(2):95-8. PubMed ID: 21937899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Traditional Methods versus Quantitative Sensory Testing of the Feet at Risk: Results from the Rotterdam Diabetic Foot Study.
Rinkel WD; Castro Cabezas M; Setyo JH; Van Neck JW; Coert JH
Plast Reconstr Surg; 2017 Mar; 139(3):752e-763e. PubMed ID: 28234858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Choosing a practical screening instrument to identify patients at risk for diabetic foot ulceration.
Armstrong DG; Lavery LA; Vela SA; Quebedeaux TL; Fleischli JG
Arch Intern Med; 1998 Feb; 158(3):289-92. PubMed ID: 9472210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Quantitative assessment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy with use of the clanging tuning fork test.
Oyer DS; Saxon D; Shah A
Endocr Pract; 2007; 13(1):5-10. PubMed ID: 17360294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Mobile phone generated vibrations used to detect diabetic peripheral neuropathy.
May JD; Morris MWJ
Foot Ankle Surg; 2017 Dec; 23(4):281-284. PubMed ID: 29202988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Testing for loss of protective sensation in patients with foot ulceration: a cross-sectional study.
Wood WA; Wood MA; Werter SA; Menn JJ; Hamilton SA; Jacoby R; Dellon AL
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc; 2005; 95(5):469-74. PubMed ID: 16166466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Screening patients at risk for diabetic foot ulceration: a comparison between measurement of vibration perception threshold and 10-g monofilament test.
Richard JL; Reilhes L; Buvry S; Goletto M; Faillie JL
Int Wound J; 2014 Apr; 11(2):147-51. PubMed ID: 22892021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effectiveness of Semmes-Weinstein monofilament examination for diabetic peripheral neuropathy screening.
Kamei N; Yamane K; Nakanishi S; Yamashita Y; Tamura T; Ohshita K; Watanabe H; Fujikawa R; Okubo M; Kohno N
J Diabetes Complications; 2005; 19(1):47-53. PubMed ID: 15642490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Possible sources of discrepancies in the use of the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament. Impact on prevalence of insensate foot and workload requirements.
McGill M; Molyneaux L; Spencer R; Heng LF; Yue DK
Diabetes Care; 1999 Apr; 22(4):598-602. PubMed ID: 10189538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Easier operation and similar power of 10 g monofilament test for screening diabetic peripheral neuropathy.
Zhang Q; Yi N; Liu S; Zheng H; Qiao X; Xiong Q; Liu X; Zhang S; Wen J; Ye H; Zhou L; Li Y; Hu R; Lu B
J Int Med Res; 2018 Aug; 46(8):3278-3284. PubMed ID: 29808737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Reversal of diabetic peripheral neuropathy and new wound incidence: the role of MIRE.
Powell MW; Carnegie DE; Burke TJ
Adv Skin Wound Care; 2004; 17(6):295-300. PubMed ID: 15289717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A novel robotic monofilament test for diabetic neuropathy.
Wilasrusmee C; Suthakorn J; Guerineau C; Itsarachaiyot Y; Sa-Ing V; Proprom N; Lertsithichai P; Jirasisrithum S; Kittur D
Asian J Surg; 2010 Oct; 33(4):193-8. PubMed ID: 21377106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
