269 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24673517)
1. 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]
2. Utilizing the Ipswich Touch Test to simplify screening methods for identifying the risk of foot ulceration among diabetics: The Saudi experience.
Madanat A; Sheshah E; Badawy el-B; Abbas A; Al-Bakheet A
Prim Care Diabetes; 2015 Aug; 9(4):304-6. PubMed ID: 25466160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. The Ipswich Touch Test: a simple and novel method to identify inpatients with diabetes at risk of foot ulceration.
Rayman G; Vas PR; Baker N; Taylor CG; Gooday C; Alder AI; Donohoe M
Diabetes Care; 2011 Jul; 34(7):1517-8. PubMed ID: 21593300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. ACP Journal Club: the Ipswich Touch Test at home had 78% sensitivity and 94% specificity for detecting loss of foot sensation.
O'Loughlin A; Dinneen SF
Ann Intern Med; 2015 Feb; 162(4):JC10. PubMed ID: 25686185
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Screening for the loss of protective sensation in people without a history of diabetic foot ulceration: Validation of two simple tests in India.
Chatzistergos PE; Kumar S; Sumathi CS; Mahadevan S; Vas P; Chockalingam N
Diabetes Res Clin Pract; 2023 Aug; 202():110810. PubMed ID: 37391033
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Computer-assisted measurement in diabetic patients with and without foot ulceration.
Tassler PL; Dellon AL; Scheffler NM
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc; 1995 Nov; 85(11):679-84. PubMed ID: 8537899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluation of a self-administered sensory testing tool to identify patients at risk of diabetes-related foot problems.
Birke JA; Rolfsen RJ
Diabetes Care; 1998 Jan; 21(1):23-5. PubMed ID: 9538965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A review of the current evidence on the sensitivity and specificity of the Ipswich touch test for the screening of loss of protective sensation in patients with diabetes mellitus.
Hu A; Koh B; Teo MR
Diabetol Int; 2021 Apr; 12(2):145-150. PubMed ID: 33786269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Diabetic neuropathy and foot complications.
Boulton AJ
Handb Clin Neurol; 2014; 126():97-107. PubMed ID: 25410217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Assessment of sensory neuropathy in diabetic patients without diabetic foot problems.
Nather A; Neo SH; Chionh SB; Liew SC; Sim EY; Chew JL
J Diabetes Complications; 2008; 22(2):126-31. PubMed ID: 18280443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. [Sensitivity and specificity of a utility model of the detection of diabetic neuropathy].
Mendoza-Romo MA; Ramírez-Arriola MC; Velasco-Chávez JF; Nieva-de Jesús RN; Rodríguez-Pérez CV; Valdez-Jiménez LA
Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc; 2013; 51(1):34-41. PubMed ID: 23550406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
