What does nerve ultrasound contribute to the evaluation of diabetic polyneuropathy over time? A prospective follow-up observational study of people with type 2 diabetes
Authors' conclusion
Ultrasound measurements alone may be insufficient to detect DPN. Follow up with nerve ultrasound over one or two years was short and did not show substantial changes.
Study context
- Population
- People with T2D examined with nerve US, nerve conduction studies and clinical scores59 at 1 y, 43 at 2 y follow-up
- Participants
- 156 people
- Exposure
- Diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) vs no DPN
- Outcome
- Nerve CSA on US
Methodological detailslongitudinal follow-up
- Longitudinal follow-up
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
- Increase of cross-sectional area (CSA) in DPN rather negligible vs normative cut-off values
- CSA of median nerve (forearm, wrist) and ulnar nerve (upper arm, forearm, wrist) significantly larger with DPN vs without DPN
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Nerve conduction studies
- DPN had significant changes in most nerve conduction parameters
US measurements over time · 1–2 years
- Slight increase in CSA of median nerve at carpal tunnel; slight decrease in fibular nerve at fibular head
- US pattern sum score slightly decreased in DPN over two years
Original publication
What does nerve ultrasound contribute to the evaluation of diabetic polyneuropathy over time? A prospective follow-up observational study of people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. Published 18 March 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →