A systematic review of outcomes measured in interventional trials in people with diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy
Authors' conclusion
Despite consistent outcome reporting, variability in measuring tools highlights the need for a COS with standardised tools. Patient-reported outcomes were more common than assessor-reported outcomes; however, using both may reduce response variability and bias. These findings will inform a future Delphi process to develop a COS for DSPN.
Study context
- Population
- Prospective diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) interventional trials since 2018
- Participants
- 184 eligible trials
- Outcome
- Outcomes reported in DSPN interventional trials
Methodological detailsPROSPERO pre-registered, PRISMA
- PROSPERO pre-registered
- PRISMA
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
- Pain as primary unique outcome
- 127
- Pain as secondary unique outcome
- 64
- Nervous system outcomes (taxonomy) as primary measure
- 174
- Nervous system outcomes (taxonomy) as secondary measure
- 89
- Visual analogue scale use
- 37
- Numerical rating scale use
- 37
- Nerve conduction study use
- 34
- Distinct measuring tools for nervous system outcomes
- Over 30
Further pooled results
Eligible records by type
- Abstracts screened
- 4851
- Protocols
- 24
- Ongoing trials
- 48
- Completed trials without published results
- 11
- Published trials with results
- 101
Original publication
A systematic review of outcomes measured in interventional trials in people with diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy. Diabet Med. Published 12 September 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →