Association between asymptomatic median mononeuropathy and diabetic polyneuropathy severity in patients with diabetes mellitus

Background: Asymptomatic median mononeuropathy (AMM) and diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) often coexist and can be difficult to distinguish electrophysiologically. Moreover, the potential association between AMM and DPN has not been extensively evaluated. Objective: We investigated the relation between AMM and DPN severity in consecutive diabetic patients. Methods: The non-dominant limb was studied electrophysiologically in 100 consecutive diabetic patients with no symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome on the non-dominant side. AMM was diagnosed based on previously validated electrophysiological criteria. DPN severity was graded according to the Michigan diabetic neuropathy score. Results: AMM was discovered in 28% of the study population (Adjusted Wald 95% CI: 20%-37%). It was more common in women, displayed a tendency of being more common in patients over 50 years old and correlated with the severity of DPN and the number of abnormal nerves on nerve conduction studies. It was present in 18.1% of patients without evidence of DPN. No correlation was found with the duration and type of diabetes. In multivariate logistic regression models increasing severity of DPN was independently associated with the presence AMM (Wald test = 10.557, df = 3, p = 0.014). Patients with DPN stage III and IV had a five-fold (OR = 5.06, 95% CI = 1.49-17.19) and a four-fold (OR = 4.50, 95% CI = 1.15-17.65) respectively increased likelihood to present with AMM in comparison to DPN stage I (reference group). Conclusions: Our results confirmed the high incidence of AMM in diabetic patients. AMM was present in a significant number of patients in the absence of DPN and the likelihood of AMM detection increased with increasing severity of DPN. © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Assessment of the reporting quality of double-blind RCTs for ischemic stroke based on the CONSORT statement

Background-Purpose: It is critical that Randomized Controlled Trials(RCTs) present complete and transparent reporting. The present study aims to determine the reporting quality of double-blind RCTs for medicinal interventions in patients with ischemic stroke, based on the 2010 CONSORT-statement. Methodology: MEDLINE was comprehensively searched. The CONSORT period was demarcated between 2000 and 2019, while compliance ≥75 was defined as good-adequate. Possible determinants were univariately and multivariately examined for associations. Results: Overall, 197 articles were considered eligible, 143 published after and 54 before 2000. CONSORT compliance was 68.11% ± 11.56% (standard deviation) and 55.65% ± 11.57% respectively. Among retrieved articles 56/143(39.16%) and 1/54(1.85%) were rated as of good reporting quality correspondingly [p < .001, OR = 34.115, 95%CI = (4.586, 253.762)]. McNemar's test was indicative of consistency regarding the adequately/inadequately reported items before and after the 2010 CONSORT-revision (p = 1.00). Univariate analysis revealed two significant associations with the reporting quality: high impact factor(IF) [high vs. moderate; p = .007, OR = 3.521, 95%CI = (1.396, 8.879), high vs. low; p < .001, OR = 7.583, 95%CI = (3.063, 18.762), moderate vs. low; p = .078, OR = 2.154, 95%CI = (0.911, 5.093)] and sample size [p < .001, OR = 4.297, 95%CI = (2.081, 8.874)]. Publication period (p = .742) and funding (p = .280) were not significantly associated. Multivariate analysis attenuated the impact of sample size providing insignificant results, whereas the effect of high IF remained significant [moderate vs. high; p = .029, OR = 0.337, 95%CI = (0.127, 0.895), low vs. high; p = .012, OR = 0.199, 95%CI = (0.057, 0.699)]. An exploratory analysis demonstrated significant, weak to moderate, positive linear correlation between reporting quality and IF [Pearson's r = 0.418, p < .001]. Conclusions: Adherence to the CONSORT-statement needs to be further endorsed and incorporated in every journal's instructions-to-authors. © 2020 Elsevier B.V