Phase Angle of Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis as an Indicator for Diabetic Polyneuropathy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Authors' conclusion
The study shows that PhA is, in comparison to other test systems used, at least an equally good and much easier to handle investigator-independent marker for detection of DPN.
Study context
- Population
- Healthy individuals and patients with T2D, Heidelberg Study on Diabetes and Complications205 T2D, 104 healthy
- Exposure
- T2D with DPN vs T2D without DPN vs healthy controls
- T2D with DPNn = 63
- Healthy controlsn = 104reference
- Outcome
- PhA of bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and its correlation with clinical, laboratory and physical markers of DPN
Methodological detailsobservational, part of the Heidelberg Study on Diabetes and Complications
- Observational
- Part of the Heidelberg Study on Diabetes and Complications
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
PhA
T2D with DPN
5.71
± 0.10
T2D without DPN
6.07
± 0.08
Healthy controls
6.18
± 0.08
T2D without DPN vs T2D with DPN: + 6.1%; P = 0.007 · Healthy controls vs T2D with DPN: + 7.9%; P < 0.001
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Confounder-adjusted correlations of phase angle (PhA) with DPN markers
- Peroneal nerve conduction velocity; amplitude
- β=.28; β=.31, P < .001
- Tibial nerve conduction velocity; amplitude
- β=.28; β=.32, P < .001
- Quantitative sensory testing (QST) Z-score, thermal detection
- β=.30, P < .05
- Fractional anisotropy (FA)
- β=.60, P < .001
- Confounder-adjusted
Diagnostic performance (ROC)
- Similar performance of PhA vs the other diagnostic methods
Original publication
Phase Angle of Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis as an Indicator for Diabetic Polyneuropathy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Published 12 January 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →