• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

土耳其版密歇根神经病变筛查工具的有效性和可靠性。

Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument.

机构信息

Dokuz Eylül University, Graduate School of Health Sciences, Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, İzmir, Turkey

Dokuz Eylül University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, İzmir, Turkey

出版信息

Turk J Med Sci. 2020 Jun 23;50(4):789-797. doi: 10.3906/sag-1906-63.

DOI:10.3906/sag-1906-63
PMID:32178509
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7379468/
Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument (MNSI-TR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 127 patients aged 45–76 years who were previously diagnosed with type 1 or 2 diabetes. Stability of the instrument was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient. Reliability of the MNSI-TR was assessed using the Kuder– Richardson formula 20 test, item-total correlations, and floor/ceiling effect. Validity was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. A logistic regression model was used to determine to what degree the MNSI-TR explain nerve conduction study (NCS) results in the prediction of neuropathy.

RESULTS

With a cut-off value of 3.5 for the questionnaire, sensitivity and specificity of the MNSI-TR were 75.5% and 68.1%, respectively. A cut-off of 2.75 for the physical assessment part of the scale resulted in 87.5% sensitivity and 93.6% specificity. The scale was able to diagnose neuropathy in the rate of 71.5% of the patients diagnosed with neuropathy by NCS.

CONCLUSION

The MNSI-TR is a valid and reliable method for evaluating diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Turkish speaking societies. It must be obtained a minimum of 4 points from the questionnaire part and a minimum of 2.5 points from the physical assessment part for the diagnosis of neuropathy

摘要

背景/目的:本研究旨在验证密歇根神经病变筛查工具(MNSI-TR)土耳其语版本的有效性和可靠性。

材料与方法

该研究纳入了 127 名年龄在 45-76 岁之间的 1 型或 2 型糖尿病患者。采用组内相关系数评估仪器的稳定性。采用 Kuder–Richardson 公式 20 检验、条目-总分相关性以及地板/天花板效应评估 MNSI-TR 的可靠性。采用受试者工作特征曲线分析评估有效性。使用逻辑回归模型确定 MNSI-TR 在多大程度上能够解释神经传导研究(NCS)结果,从而预测神经病变。

结果

问卷的截断值为 3.5 时,MNSI-TR 的敏感性和特异性分别为 75.5%和 68.1%。量表体格检查部分的截断值为 2.75 时,敏感性为 87.5%,特异性为 93.6%。该量表能够以 71.5%的比率诊断出通过 NCS 诊断为神经病变的患者中的神经病变。

结论

MNSI-TR 是一种在土耳其语人群中评估糖尿病周围神经病变的有效且可靠的方法。问卷部分至少要获得 4 分,体格检查部分至少要获得 2.5 分才能诊断为神经病变。

相似文献

1
Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument.土耳其版密歇根神经病变筛查工具的有效性和可靠性。
Turk J Med Sci. 2020 Jun 23;50(4):789-797. doi: 10.3906/sag-1906-63.
2
Turkish version of the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument in the assessment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a validity and reliability study.用于评估糖尿病性周围神经病变的密歇根神经病变筛查量表土耳其语版本:效度与信度研究
Diabetol Int. 2020 Feb 21;11(3):283-292. doi: 10.1007/s13340-020-00427-9. eCollection 2020 Jul.
3
Validation and Reliability of the Portuguese Version of the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument.密歇根神经病变筛查工具葡萄牙语版本的效度与信度
Pain Pract. 2017 Apr;17(4):514-521. doi: 10.1111/papr.12479. Epub 2016 Aug 19.
4
Validity and reliability of the Polish version of the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument.密歇根神经病变筛查工具波兰语版本的有效性和可靠性。
World J Diabetes. 2023 Apr 15;14(4):435-446. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v14.i4.435.
5
Translation, validation, and diagnostic accuracy of the Arabic version of the Michigan neuropathy screening instrument.密歇根神经病变筛查工具阿拉伯语版的翻译、验证和诊断准确性。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Nov 5;100(44):e27627. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027627.
6
Use of the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument as a measure of distal symmetrical peripheral neuropathy in Type 1 diabetes: results from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications.密歇根神经病变筛查工具在 1 型糖尿病远端对称性周围神经病变中的应用:来自糖尿病控制和并发症试验/糖尿病干预和并发症的流行病学研究结果。
Diabet Med. 2012 Jul;29(7):937-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03644.x.
7
[A comparison of clinical effectiveness of different neuropathy scoring systems in screening asymptomatic diabetic peripheral neuropathy].不同神经病变评分系统在筛查无症状糖尿病周围神经病变中的临床效果比较
Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi. 2012 Jan;51(1):13-7.
8
Translation and Psychometric Properties of the Arabic Version of Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument in Type 2 Diabetes.密歇根神经病变筛查工具阿拉伯文版在 2 型糖尿病中的翻译及心理计量特性。
J Diabetes Res. 2019 Mar 31;2019:2673105. doi: 10.1155/2019/2673105. eCollection 2019.
9
The effect of obesity on the assessment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a comparison of Michigan patient version test and Michigan physical assessment.肥胖对糖尿病周围神经病变评估的影响:密歇根患者版本测试和密歇根物理评估的比较。
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010 Dec;90(3):256-60. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2010.09.014. Epub 2010 Oct 12.
10
[Evaluation of the four simple methods in the diagnosis of diabetic peripheral neuropathy].[四种简易方法诊断糖尿病周围神经病变的评估]
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2006 Oct 17;86(38):2707-10.

引用本文的文献

1
Effects of Computer-based Balance Exercises on Balance, Pain, Clinical Presentation and Nerve Function in Patients With Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Randomized Controlled Study.基于计算机的平衡练习对糖尿病周围神经病变患者平衡、疼痛、临床症状和神经功能的影响:一项随机对照研究。
J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2024 Jun 1;24(2):168-177.
2
Validity and reliability of the Polish version of the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument.密歇根神经病变筛查工具波兰语版本的有效性和可靠性。
World J Diabetes. 2023 Apr 15;14(4):435-446. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v14.i4.435.
3
Validity and Reliability of the Parental Health Literacy Questionnaire for Caregivers of Children Aged 0 to 3 Years in China.

本文引用的文献

1
Clinical Review of Antidiabetic Drugs: Implications for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Management.抗糖尿病药物的临床综述:对2型糖尿病管理的启示
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2017 Jan 24;8:6. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2017.00006. eCollection 2017.
2
Ambulatory screening of diabetic neuropathy and predictors of its severity in outpatient settings.门诊环境中糖尿病神经病变的动态筛查及其严重程度的预测因素。
J Endocrinol Invest. 2017 Apr;40(4):425-430. doi: 10.1007/s40618-016-0581-y. Epub 2016 Nov 15.
3
Cross-cultural adaptation to Brazilian Portuguese of the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument: MNSI-Brazil.
中国 0-3 岁儿童照护者健康素养问卷的信度和效度研究。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Dec 1;19(23):16076. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192316076.
《密歇根神经病变筛查工具》的巴西葡萄牙语跨文化适应性调整:巴西版MNSI
Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2016 Aug;74(8):653-61. doi: 10.1590/0004-282X20160094.
4
Validation and Reliability of the Portuguese Version of the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument.密歇根神经病变筛查工具葡萄牙语版本的效度与信度
Pain Pract. 2017 Apr;17(4):514-521. doi: 10.1111/papr.12479. Epub 2016 Aug 19.
5
Systematic review of treatments for diabetic peripheral neuropathy.糖尿病周围神经病变治疗的系统评价
Diabet Med. 2016 Nov;33(11):1466-1476. doi: 10.1111/dme.13083. Epub 2016 Feb 21.
6
Do all neuropathy patients need an EMG at least once?所有神经病变患者都至少需要做一次肌电图吗?
Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2014 Oct;20(5 Peripheral Nervous System Disorders):1430-4. doi: 10.1212/01.CON.0000455870.45685.c7.
7
Diabetic neuropathies.糖尿病性神经病变
Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2014 Oct;20(5 Peripheral Nervous System Disorders):1226-40. doi: 10.1212/01.CON.0000455884.29545.d2.
8
Use of the Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument as a measure of distal symmetrical peripheral neuropathy in Type 1 diabetes: results from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications.密歇根神经病变筛查工具在 1 型糖尿病远端对称性周围神经病变中的应用:来自糖尿病控制和并发症试验/糖尿病干预和并发症的流行病学研究结果。
Diabet Med. 2012 Jul;29(7):937-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2012.03644.x.
9
Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: consensus recommendations on diagnosis, assessment and management.疼痛性糖尿病周围神经病变:诊断、评估和管理的共识建议。
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2011 Oct;27(7):629-38. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.1225.
10
Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations.CVI(内容效度指数)是内容效度的可接受指标吗?评估与建议。
Res Nurs Health. 2007 Aug;30(4):459-67. doi: 10.1002/nur.20199.