Journal of the ASEAN Federation of Endocrine Societies · 2022
Accuracy and Cost-effectiveness of the Diabetic Foot Screen Proforma in Detection of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy in Myanmar.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hnit Mya Win, Han Tin Myo, Nicodemus Leilanie
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Proper foot assessment is important for early detection and treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), the main cause of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). This study aimed to determine the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of the locally developed Diabetic Foot Screen (DFS) proforma in detecting DPN among diabetic patients at 10 selected clinics in Yangon, Myanmar.
METHODOLOGY: The study included 625 type 2 diabetics from 10 primary care clinics who participated in the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness analysis. They were assessed with DFS proforma and biothesiometry by two examiners independently. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted based on available data in the local primary care setting.
RESULTS: The overall accuracy of the DFS proforma assessment was 74.76% (95% CI: 70.46%- 79.06%). The optimal cut-off DFS score was ≥1.5 (sensitivity 62%; specificity 76%) in detecting DPN. Compared to biothesiometry, the cost-effectiveness of DFS proforma assessment in DPN detection was 41.79 USD per DPN case detected.
CONCLUSION: This study supported the use of DFS proforma for DPN detection in primary care clinics. It also provided new information on the estimated costs per patient with DPN detected in Myanmar.
METHODOLOGY: The study included 625 type 2 diabetics from 10 primary care clinics who participated in the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness analysis. They were assessed with DFS proforma and biothesiometry by two examiners independently. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted based on available data in the local primary care setting.
RESULTS: The overall accuracy of the DFS proforma assessment was 74.76% (95% CI: 70.46%- 79.06%). The optimal cut-off DFS score was ≥1.5 (sensitivity 62%; specificity 76%) in detecting DPN. Compared to biothesiometry, the cost-effectiveness of DFS proforma assessment in DPN detection was 41.79 USD per DPN case detected.
CONCLUSION: This study supported the use of DFS proforma for DPN detection in primary care clinics. It also provided new information on the estimated costs per patient with DPN detected in Myanmar.