Prevalence of peripheral neuropathy in pre-diabetes: a systematic review.

Varo Kirthi, Anugraha Perumbalath, Emily Brown, Sarah Nevitt, Ioannis N Petropoulos, Jamie Burgess, Rebecca Roylance, Daniel J Cuthbertson, Timothy L Jackson, Rayaz A Malik, Uazman Alam

Journal: BMJ open diabetes research & care 2021;9(1):e002040

PMID: 34006607

Abstract

There is growing evidence of excess peripheral neuropathy in pre-diabetes. We aimed to determine its prevalence, including the impact of diagnostic methodology on prevalence rates, through a systematic review conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive electronic bibliographic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to June 1, 2020. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. An evaluation was undertaken by method of neuropathy assessment. After screening 1784 abstracts and reviewing 84 full-text records, 29 studies (9351 participants) were included. There was a wide range of prevalence estimates (2%-77%, IQR: 6%-34%), but the majority of studies (n=21, 72%) reported a prevalence ≥10%. The three highest prevalence estimates of 77% (95% CI: 54% to 100%), 71% (95% CI: 55% to 88%) and 66% (95% CI: 53% to 78%) were reported using plantar thermography, multimodal quantitative sensory testing and nerve conduction tests, respectively. In general, studies evaluating small nerve fiber parameters yielded a higher prevalence of peripheral neuropathy. Due to a variety of study populations and methods of assessing neuropathy, there was marked heterogeneity in the prevalence estimates. Most studies reported a higher prevalence of peripheral neuropathy in pre-diabetes, primarily of a small nerve fiber origin, than would be expected in the background population. Given the marked rise in pre-diabetes, further consideration of targeting screening in this population is required. Development of risk-stratification tools may facilitate earlier interventions.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Address: Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK [email protected] [email protected].; Department of Ophthalmology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.; Department of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Medicine, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.; Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.; Research Division, Weill Cornell Medicine, Doha, Qatar.; Edge Hill University Library, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.; Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.; Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.; Department of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Medicine, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK [email protected] [email protected].; Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes & Gastroenterology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.; Pain Research Institute, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.