These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

158 related items for PubMed ID: 16126117

  • 1. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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]

  • 4. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. [Examination of peripheral sensibility. Vibration test is more sensitive than monofilament test].
    Sörman E, Edwall LL.
    Lakartidningen; 2002 Mar 21; 99(12):1339-40. PubMed ID: 11998167
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. 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 21; 29(12):1553-5. PubMed ID: 22672257
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Comparison of different screening tests for detecting diabetic foot neuropathy.
    Forouzandeh F, Aziz Ahari A, Abolhasani F, Larijani B.
    Acta Neurol Scand; 2005 Dec 21; 112(6):409-13. PubMed ID: 16281925
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. 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 21; 35(3):e3119. PubMed ID: 30575290
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Evaluation of clinical tools and their diagnostic use in distal symmetric polyneuropathy.
    Pourhamidi K, Dahlin LB, Englund E, Rolandsson O.
    Prim Care Diabetes; 2014 Apr 21; 8(1):77-84. PubMed ID: 23664849
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. 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 Apr 21; 19(1):47-53. PubMed ID: 15642490
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. 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 Apr 21; 34(2):95-8. PubMed ID: 21937899
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. The tuning fork and the at-risk foot.
    Hitman GA.
    Diabet Med; 2012 Dec 21; 29(12):1477. PubMed ID: 23151034
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. [Examination of tactile disorders in diabetic patients and cooperation with a neurologist].
    Jirkovská A, Boucek P.
    Vnitr Lek; 2007 May 21; 53(5):489-94. PubMed ID: 17642430
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. 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 21; 49(8):60-70, 72-3. PubMed ID: 14631664
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Monofilament assessment of neuropathy in a community diabetes clinic.
    Rheeder P, van Wyk JT, Hokken JW, Hueting HM.
    S Afr Med J; 2002 Sep 21; 92(9):715-9. PubMed ID: 12382357
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Quantitative assessment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy with use of the clanging tuning fork test.
    Oyer DS, Saxon D, Shah A.
    Endocr Pract; 2007 Sep 21; 13(1):5-10. PubMed ID: 17360294
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. 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 Sep 21; 15(3):857-862. PubMed ID: 33873055
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. [Monofilament test in diabetic neuropathy].
    Valkonen O, Erkinjuntti M, Falck B, Rönnemaa T.
    Duodecim; 2000 Sep 21; 116(19):2119-25. PubMed ID: 12017733
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 8.