107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22686252)
1. An alternative to a 10-g monofilament or tuning fork? Two new, simple, easy-to-use screening tests for determining foot ulcer risk in people with diabetes.
Baker N
Diabet Med; 2012 Dec; 29(12):1477-9. PubMed ID: 22686252
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The tuning fork and the at-risk foot.
Hitman GA
Diabet Med; 2012 Dec; 29(12):1477. PubMed ID: 23151034
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. A comparison of the monofilament with other testing modalities for foot ulcer susceptibility.
Miranda-Palma B; Sosenko JM; Bowker JH; Mizel MS; Boulton AJ
Diabetes Res Clin Pract; 2005 Oct; 70(1):8-12. PubMed ID: 16126117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Clinical evaluation of a new device in the assessment of peripheral sensory neuropathy in diabetes.
Bracewell N; Game F; Jeffcoate W; Scammell BE
Diabet Med; 2012 Dec; 29(12):1553-5. PubMed ID: 22672257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison between monofilament, tuning fork and vibration perception tests for screening patients at risk of foot complication.
Gin H; Rigalleau V; Baillet L; Rabemanantsoa C
Diabetes Metab; 2002 Dec; 28(6 Pt 1):457-61. PubMed ID: 12522325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Foot screening technique in a diabetic population.
Shin JB; Seong YJ; Lee HJ; Kim SH; Park JR
J Korean Med Sci; 2000 Feb; 15(1):78-82. PubMed ID: 10719814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Isolated use of vibration perception thresholds and semmes-weinstein monofilament in diagnosing diabetic polyneuropathy: "the North Catalonia diabetes study".
Jurado J; Ybarra J; Pou JM
Nurs Clin North Am; 2007 Mar; 42(1):59-66. PubMed ID: 17270590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. [Examination of peripheral sensibility. Vibration test is more sensitive than monofilament test].
Sörman E; Edwall LL
Lakartidningen; 2002 Mar; 99(12):1339-40. PubMed ID: 11998167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Predicting ulcer-free survival using the discriminative value of screening test locations.
Rinkel WD; van der Oest MJW; Dijkstra DA; Castro Cabezas M; Coert JH
Diabetes Metab Res Rev; 2019 Mar; 35(3):e3119. PubMed ID: 30575290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Vibration perception threshold: are multiple sites of testing superior to single site testing on diabetic foot examination?
Armstrong DG; Hussain SK; Middleton J; Peters EJ; Wunderlich RP; Lavery LA
Ostomy Wound Manage; 1998 May; 44(5):70-4, 76. PubMed ID: 9697548
[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. The Ipswich Touch Test: a simple and novel method to screen patients with diabetes at home for increased risk of foot ulceration.
Sharma S; Kerry C; Atkins H; Rayman G
Diabet Med; 2014 Sep; 31(9):1100-3. PubMed ID: 24673517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A pocket-sized disposable device for testing the integrity of sensation in the outpatient setting.
Bowling FL; Abbott CA; Harris WE; Atanasov S; Malik RA; Boulton AJ
Diabet Med; 2012 Dec; 29(12):1550-2. PubMed ID: 22672290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Measuring vibration sensations with graduated tuning fork. Simple and reliable means to detect diabetic patients at risk of neuropathic foot ulceration.
Thivolet C; el Farkh J; Petiot A; Simonet C; Tourniaire J
Diabetes Care; 1990 Oct; 13(10):1077-80. PubMed ID: 2209306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Neuropathic and ischemic changes of the foot in Brazilian patients with diabetes.
Muniz EC; Rocha RM; Reis ML; Santos VL; Grossi SA
Ostomy Wound Manage; 2003 Aug; 49(8):60-70, 72-3. PubMed ID: 14631664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Utility of vibration sense testing for use in developing countries: comparison of extinction time on the tuning fork to vibration thresholds on the Vibratron II.
London L; Thompson ML; Capper W; Myers JE
Neurotoxicology; 2000 Oct; 21(5):743-52. PubMed ID: 11130278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
