Research Portal, King's College, London - The Effects of ... · Web viewThe 12 item- Short Form...
Transcript of Research Portal, King's College, London - The Effects of ... · Web viewThe 12 item- Short Form...
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
The Effects of Psychological Interventions on Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Original research
Simona Racaru1,2 Jackie Sturt1 Celik Aycan1
1. Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King’s College London, UK
2. St. Mary’s Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
Corresponding author
Simona Racaru, RN, MSc
St. Mary’s Hospital, Zachary Cope Ward, 8th Floor,
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
South Wharf Road,
London, W2 1BL, UK.
Telephone: 020 3312 6661;
Email: [email protected]
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Abstract
Background: Psychological interventions are effective at ameliorating the experience of pain
in conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and chronic back pain. However, their effect on
diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) pain has yet to be established.
Aim: To assess the effectiveness of psychological interventions on pain and related outcomes
in adults with DPN.
Methods: Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, and CINAHL databases together with grey literature
and trial registers were searched. A meta-analysis and narrative synthesis of included studies
were undertaken.
Results: Nine studies were selected from 1610 citations. At short-term follow-up
psychological therapies showed a large effect on pain severity (SMD= -0.94, 95%CI[-1.50, -
0.37], p=.001) a small effect on pain interference (SMD= -0.39, 95%CI[-0.73, -0.05], p=.02),
and a moderate effect on depressive symptoms (SMD= -0.58, 95%CI[-0.95, -0.21], p=.002).
Quality of life significantly improved in experimental subjects, (MD= -2.35, 95%CI[-3.99, -
0.71], p=.005).
At medium-term follow-up there was a large effect on pain severity (SMD= -1.26, 95%CI[-
1.76, -0.77], p< .00001) and on pain interference (SMD= -0.91, 95%CI[-1.61, -0.21], p=.01)
and a moderate effect on depressive symptoms (SMD= -0.76, 95%CI[-1.48, -0.05], p=.04).
At long-term follow-up, improvements in pain interference, mood and self-care behaviors
were reported.
Conclusions. Psychological interventions can help to reduce pain levels and depressive
symptoms and improve QoL in adults with DPN. These findings demonstrate that
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
relationships between pain and perceived control among other groups who experience
chronic pain may also be replicated in the DPN population. This is an important outcome that
can guide further research and associated service developments.
Key words
Psychological interventions, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, diabetes, pain, quality of life,
systematic review
Key practice points
Mindfulness-based stress reduction can decrease pain and improve quality of life for
people who experience diabetic peripheral neuropathy.
Cognitive behavioral therapy can also decrease pain, improve mood and promote self-
care among this patient group.
It is not possible to confidently determine the effect size of these interventions based
on current evidence.
Further research is needed with larger samples and more robust methodologies to
confirm or refute these findings.
Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a common microvascular complication of
diabetes which is caused by nerve damage. On average, half of people with diabetes develop
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
peripheral neuropathies (Tesfaye et al., 2011). DPN commonly affects the nerves of the feet
and legs with symptoms varying between tingling and pain to numbness and complete loss of
sensation (Funnell, 2014). Chronic DPN can lead to complications, the most common of
which is diabetic foot disease which often leads to amputation (Hershey, 2017). Early
diagnosis and treatment of DPN to lessen its impact on quality of life (QoL) may impact
positively on self-care and therefore reduce the risk of diabetic foot ulceration and
amputation (Diabetes UK, 2017).
Chronic pain, experienced by 50% of individuals with DPN (Hershey, 2017), impairs
physical ability and diminishes freedom of movement and mental health, leading to
conditions such as depression, which affects social functioning (Breivik, Eisenberg, &
O’Brien, 2013). The level (or intensity) of pain felt by one person is defined as pain severity
while the degree to which DPN pain interferes or limits people’s daily functioning, such as
disturbing sleep, walking or general activity, is defined as pain interference (Zelman, Gore,
Dukes, Tai, & Brandenburg, 2005). Additionally, depression and diabetes specific distress are
common complications of diabetes (Fisher et al., 2010).
First line treatment for DPN is medication although sometimes pain is difficult to
manage with drugs (Tesfaye et al., 2011). Other therapies include alpha-lipoic-acid
supplements and spinal cord stimulation (Amato Nesbit et al., 2019), foot offloading (Mishra,
Chhatbar, Kashikar, & Mehndiratta, 2017), acupuncture (Zhang, Tang, & Gao, 2019) and
surgical decompression (Zhang, Li, & Zheng, 2013). In other conditions such as fibromyalgia
or chronic back pain, research has demonstrated that psychological interventions can be
effective for pain management (Sielski, Rief, & Glombiewski, 2017; Theadom, Cropley,
Smith, Feigin, & McPherson, 2015).
Psychological interventions are wide-ranging and aim to minimize emotional distress
resulting from chronic pain and comorbid depression, and to enhance individuals’
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
adaptability and attitudes to diminish the pain experience (Benzon et al., 2013). They can
therefore help people manage their condition in different ways to traditional medicine. For
example, by increasing their motivation to improve self-management and coping skills, and
by enhancing adherence to treatment (Tovote et al., 2017).
Since chronic pain is a life-long condition that can never be entirely cured, evidence
suggests that combining medication with psychological therapies might be a more sustainable
and efficient method of pain management in the long-term (Turk, Wilson, & Cahana, 2011).
Pain is an almost inextricable part of DPN which needs to be treated holistically (Turk,
Audette, Levy, Mackey, & Stanos, 2010), and psychological therapies can help improve a
person’s control of their bodies and their bodies’ response to both pain and treatment (Nijs et
al., 2017).
The purpose of this review is to bring together for the first time, evidence relating to
the effectiveness of psychological interventions for DPN. It seeks to answer the following
research question: what is the effectiveness of psychological interventions compared to usual
care, active control or other interventions on DPN symptoms, management and quality of life
in adults with diabetes?
Methods
This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al., 2009), the
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins & Green, 2011) and
was registered on the PROSPERO database for systematic reviews; number
CRD42019127274.
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Eligibility criteria
Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of
psychological interventions compared to usual care, active control or other intervention. To
be eligible the studies needed to capture outcome data relating to DPN symptoms, DPN
management and QoL in adults.
Psychological interventions in this review represent any treatment that is adapted for
each participant, focusing on mental healing, relaxation and behavior changes e.g. cognitive
behavioral therapy (CBT), mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), motivational
interviewing (MI), acceptance therapy and counselling.
Studies that used mixed interventions (e.g. qigong, tai chi, yoga), or explored
neuropathy of nondiabetic causation were excluded. Selection of eligible studies was
performed by one reviewer (SR) under supervision of a second reviewer (JS).
Search strategy
To retrieve relevant papers a search strategy was constructed on three facets of a
Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Study design analysis: population,
intervention and study design (PIS) (Sackett, Richardson, Rosenberg, & Haynes, 1997). The
search strategy contained the key words: diabetes*, neuropath*, psycho* and the MeSH
terms: diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy and cognitive behavioral therapy.
The search was conducted by one reviewer (SR) under supervision of a second
reviewer (JS) without limitations to language, year, place, type or status of publication on
four databases from inception to April 2019: Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, and CINAHL.
Additionally, grey literature databases OpenGrey and PsychExtra, and the following trial
registers were searched: World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Union Clinical Trials Register. The reference lists of
selected studies were also hand searched.
Study selection
Database search results were combined in Endnote software and duplicates removed.
Titles and abstracts for the remaining papers were examined and irrelevant reports were
eliminated. Full texts were then retrieved and reviewed for eligibility criteria. Studies that did
not meet the eligibility criteria were excluded at this stage.
Papers retrieved for full text evaluation were read in full by two reviewers (SR, AC)
and any disagreements were resolved by discussion. In cases where agreement was not
reached, a third reviewer was consulted (JS).
Data extraction
Data were extracted by one reviewer (SR) using a data extraction template that
captured key study characteristics including sample, intervention, comparator, outcomes and
results. Data were presented to a second reviewer (JS) and any uncertainties were discussed.
Extractions were reviewed by a faculty staff member independently of the review
team and any uncertainties were discussed.
Risk of bias and GRADE assessment
The internal and external validity of the included studies were assessed independently
by two reviewers (SR, AC) using the GRADE system (Balshem et al., 2011) and the
Cochrane Collaboration “Risk of bias” tool (Higgins & Green, 2011). Any uncertainties were
resolved through discussion.
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Data analysis
Meta-analysis was justified where at least two studies shared homogeneity in
participants, interventions, control groups and outcome (Higgins & Green 2011). Meta-
analysis was performed in Review Manager 5.3 (RevMan5.3), and the intervention effect
estimate was expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD), when continuous outcomes
were measured with various instruments. SMD effect estimate was calculated with a 95%
confidence interval (CI) using the inverse variance technique with random effect model
(Higgins & Green, 2011). SMD effect size was interpreted following Cohen (1988): 0.2 to
0.5= small effect, 0.5 to 0.8= moderate effect and over 0.8= large effect. When similar scales
were used for continuous outcome measurements, meta-analysis was calculated as a
difference in means between groups (MD) with a 95% CI using either a random or fixed
effect model. The level of significance (alpha) for the overall effect estimate was defined by
the p value of the test for overall effect (Z) (Higgins & Green, 2011). For a 95% CI, a p value
of less than .05 (p< .05) was considered significant. Statistical heterogeneity across studies
was quantified by computing I2 statistics. An I2 value between 30% to 60% was considered
moderate and an I2 value greater than 60%, was considered substantial heterogeneity (Higgins
& Green, 2011). A negative value for the effect size (e.g. SMD= -0.58) suggested that the
intervention was more probably to be favorable for a continuous outcome. In trials where
standard deviations (SD) were not provided these were calculated from the CI of the means in
each group (Higgins & Green, 2011). For studies which could not be meta-analyzed, a
narrative synthesis was undertaken. Follow-up times from pre-treatment were categorized in
intervals of short-term (between 2 and 12 weeks), medium-term (between 12 and 24 weeks)
and long-term (between 24 and 52 weeks).
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Results
Selection of studies
The search strategy retrieved 1610 citations. After duplicates were removed, 1227
titles and abstracts were screened and 29 were retrieved for full text assessment (Figure 1).
Records identified through
database searching:
Medline = 456 Embase = 562 CINAHL = 204 Psychinfo = 54
(n = 1276)
Scre
enin
g In
clud
ed
Elig
ibili
ty
Iden
tifica
tion
Additional records identified
through other sources
(n = 334)
Records after duplicates removed
(n = 1227)
Records screened
(n = 1227)
Records excluded
(n = 1198)
Full-text articles assessed for eligibility
(n = 29)
Full-text articles excluded, with
reasons
(n = 20)
Not RCT=2
Not psychological intervention =9
Mixed therapies = 5
Not DPN=3
Not obtainable = 1
Studies included in analysis
(n = 9)
Figure 1. Prisma flow diagram (Moher et al., 2009)
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Study characteristics
From 29 fully assessed papers, nine were included of which one was an unpublished
RCT retrieved from clinicaltrials.gov, registration number NCT00829387 (Ghavami, Radfar,
Soheily, Shamsi, & Khalkhali, 2018; Kerns, 2015; Keukenkamp, Merkx, Busch-Westbroek,
& Bus, 2018; Nathan et al., 2017; Otis et al., 2013; Pfammatter, 2012; Skafjeld et al., 2015;
Teixeira, 2010; Vedhara et al., 2012). The nine studies involved the randomization of 335
participants from which 298 datasets were analyzed. All studies were published in English
and used randomization at the individual level. Study characteristics are presented in Table 1.
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy 11
Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
Author, country, design
Sample size (I/C), follow-up period, intention-to-treat (Y/N), primary outcome
Mean age (years), % male, % T2DM, duration of condition (years)
Intervention, therapist, control treatment Outcomes: MD [95%CI], (p value)
Ghavami et al., (2018), Iran, RCT
Kerns, (2015), USA, RCT
Nathan et al., (2017), Canada, RCT
Otis et al., (2013), USA, RCT
I=40/C=40, 12 weeks, N, DPN severity assessed by mTCNS
I=23/C=24, 36 weeks, N, pain severity assessed by NRS
I=33/C=33, 12 weeks (20 weeks from baseline), N, pain interference assessed by BPI
I=11/C=8, 16 weeks, N/ NR, pain severity & interference assessed by
I=49/C=47, I=30%/C=19%, 100%, I=19/C=17
I=64/C=61, I=91%/C=96%, 100%, NR
60I=50%/C=62%, I=80%/C=75%, NR
63, 100%, 100%, NR
Lifestyle counselling, one-on-one sessions, therapist details not specified, 12 weeks duration but frequency of sessions not stated, usual care control group
Cognitive behavioural therapy, ten weekly sessions of 60 minutes, delivered one-on-one by a doctoral level psychologist, diabetes education control group
Mindfulness based stress reduction delivered in group over 8 weeks with 2.5-hour sessions, plus one 6-hour session delivered at mid-course, practitioners with more than 5 years-experience in MBSR, usual care control group.
Cognitive-behavioural pain management therapy delivered one-on-one, 60-minute weekly sessions over 11 weeks by PhD level psychologist or Master
mTCNS: ST= -3.60[-4.70, -2.50], (p<.00001)
NRS: ST= -0.38[-1.39, 0.63], (p=.46) MPI: ST= -0.34[-1.10, 0.42], (p=.38); LT= -0.93[-
1.70, -0.16], (p=.03). BDI: ST -2.35[-6.73, 2.03], (p=.29); LT= -4.15[-
9.37, 1.07], (p=.12).
BPI interference ST= -1.41[-2.96, 0.14], (p=.07); MT= -2.18[-3.73, -0.63], (p=.006):
BPI intensity ST= -1.60[-2.40, -0.80] (p<.0001), MT= -1.92[-2.71, -1.13] (p<.00001).
BDI depressive symptoms: ST= -3.53[-5.83, -1.23] (p=.003); MT= -4.81[-7.11, -2.51], (p<.0001).
NQoL ST= -2.44[-4.11, -0.77] (p=.004) pain catastrophising (p=.001) improved in the I
group.
MPI severity ST= -1.04[-2.00, -0.08], (p=.03); MT= -1.08[-1.73, -0.43], (p=.001)
MPI interference ST= -0.88[-2.39, 0.63], (p=.025), MT= -1.57[-2.56, -0.58], (p=.002)
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy 12
Author, country, design
Sample size (I/C), follow-up period, intention-to-treat (Y/N), primary outcome
Mean age (years), % male, % T2DM, duration of condition (years)
Intervention, therapist, control treatment Outcomes: MD [95%CI], (p value)
Teixeira, (2010), USA, RCT
Pfammatter, (2012), USA, RCT
Keukenkamp et al, (2018), Netherlands, RCT
Skafjeld et al., (2015), Norway, RCT
MPI, depressive symptoms assessed by BDI
I=11/C=11, 4 weeks, N, quality of life assessed by NeuroQoL
I=16/C=16, 12 weeks, N, pain severity assessed by MPI
I=6/C=7, 12 weeks, N, footwear adherence assessed by @monitor
I=21/C=20, 1 year, Y, foot ulcer incidence assessed by Wagner classification system
75, 25%, 100%, 12.6.
I=61/C=57, I=50%/C=55%, NR
I=57/C=62, I=100%/C=80%, I=80%/C=80%, I=29/C=17
I=57/C=59, I=86%/C=75%, I=71% /C=70%, I=17/C=19.5
level therapist, usual treatment control group
Mindfulness meditation, one group session of 60 minutes plus individual listening to a CD 5 days per week for 4 weeks plus weekly telephone calls and maintenance of a food diary, delivered by principal investigator with experience in MM and diabetes education, attention placebo control group
Thermal Biofeedback Assisted Relaxation (TBAR), 15-minute weekly sessions delivered by the experimenter over 6-weeks, attention placebo control group
Motivational Interviewing (MI) delivered one-on-one by rehabilitation medicine specialist, standard education control.
Theory based counselling for foot temperature monitoring, recording of daily steps and footwear adherence. Training on using digital infrared thermometer, study nurse, standard care control
Cognitive behaviour therapy delivered in group by
BDI depressive symptoms ST= -7.40[-18.68, 3.88], (p=.20), MT= (p=.58)
NQoL: insignificant improvement in QoL NRS: pain severity did not improve; insignificant
improvement in pain interference. PSQI: Sleep did not improve following intervention
MPI: pain severity did not decrease following intervention
SOPA: pain perception and perceived control did not improve following intervention
@monitor: footwear adherence improved at ST: I= 90% (30%–98%)* but not at MT: I=56% (28%–90%)*
Wagner foot classification system: foot ulcer incidence at LT was better in the intervention group: I=33% /C=50%,
SOS social support ST= 3.60 [-0.26, 7.46], p=.07;
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy 13
Author, country, design
Sample size (I/C), follow-up period, intention-to-treat (Y/N), primary outcome
Mean age (years), % male, % T2DM, duration of condition (years)
Intervention, therapist, control treatment Outcomes: MD [95%CI], (p value)
Vedhara et al., (2012), UK, RCT
I=10/C=5, 36 months, N/NR, SOS, BIPQ, POMS, SDSCA
65, 77%, 77%, NR diabetes specialist nurse and diabetes specialist podiatrist, usual care control group
LT= 4.30[-1.46, 10.06], p=.14. BIPQ illness cognition ST= (p=.97); LT= (p=.26); POMS mood ST= -13.00[-24.27, -1.73], p=.02; LT=
-10.20[-18.70, -1.70], p=.02 SDSCA self-care behaviour ST= 12.80 [1.09,
24.51], (p=.03); LT= 14.80 [1.92, 27.68], (p=.02)
Key: RCT=randomised controlled trial, I/C=intervention/control, T2DM= type 2 diabetes, mTCNS=modified Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score, BPI=brief pain inventory, MPI=Multidimensional Pain Inventory, BDI=Beck Depression Inventory, QoL=quality of life, NQoL=Neuropathy Quality of Life, POMS=profile of mood state, SOS=Significant Others Scale, BIPQ=Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaire, SDSCA=Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities, NRS= Numeric Rating Scale, SOPA=Survey of pain attitudes, DPN=diabetic peripheral neuropathy, NR= not reported, p≤.05=significant, MD= difference in means between groups, [95%CI] = 95% Confidence Interval, negative scores (-) = psychological intervention is favourable (e.g. reduction in pain symptoms), ST=short term, MT=medium term, LT=long term, [*]=data provided as Median (range).
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Intervention type
Two studies used CBT strategies that focused on relaxation techniques, challenging
negative thoughts, anger management, sleep hygiene and behavioral goals (Otis et al., 2013;
Vedhara et al., 2012). One study did not specify type of CBT intervention (Kerns, 2015).
Three studies used variants of CBT: a mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR)
intervention to allow the objective assessment of pain rather than catastrophizing it (Nathan
et al., 2017); a mindfulness meditation intervention to increase awareness and relaxation
(Teixeira, 2010); and thermal biofeedback assisted relaxation (TBAR), which used breathing
techniques and imagery to aid relaxation (Pfammatter, 2012). Two studies investigated
counselling techniques on lifestyle changes, goal setting and foot temperature monitoring
(Ghavami et al., 2018; Skafjeld et al., 2015) and one study assessed a motivational
interviewing intervention (Keukenkamp et al., 2018).
Mode of delivery
Two interventions were delivered in groups (Vedhara et al., 2012; Nathan et al.,
2017), four were one-on-one interventions (Otis et al., 2013; Kerns, 2015; Ghavami et al.,
2018; Keukenkamp et al., 2018), one was mixed (group and one-on-one) (Teixeira, 2010) and
two did not specify the delivery method (Pfammatter, 2012; Skafjeld et al., 2015).
Intervention duration varied from two weeks to one year.
Delivery staff
The interventions were delivered by psychologists (Otis et al., 2013; Kerns, 2015), a
diabetes specialist nurse and podiatrist (Vedhara et al., 2012), experienced practitioners
trained in MBSR with more than 5 years of experience as workshop leaders (Nathan et al.,
2017), a principal investigator (Teixeira, 2010; Pfammatter, 2012), care provider (details not
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
specified) (Ghavami et al., 2018), study nurse (Skafjeld et al., 2015) and a rehabilitation
medicine specialist (Keukenkamp et al., 2018).
The included studies assessed clinical and psychosocial outcomes which are
summarized in Table 2 together with the instruments used for their assessment.
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy 16
Table 2 Patient Reported Outcome Measurements (PROMs)
Outcome Outcome measure Study IDDiabetes and DPN specific
Pain Severity
Pain Interference
QoL
Modified Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score (mTCNS)Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS)
Neuropathic Pain Scale
Neuropathic Quality of Life scale (NQoL): NQoL/Pain, NQoL/Feeling, NQoL/Motor, NQoL/Restriction, NQoL/Disruption subscales, NQoL/Emotion, Overall Quality of Life, NQoL/Symptom
Ghavami et al., (2018)Teixeira, (2010)
Teixeira, (2010)
Nathan et al., (2017); Teixeira, (2010)
GenericPain Severity
Pain interference
QoL
Psychosocial functioning
Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)West Haven Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (WHYMPI)/MPINumeric Rating Scale (NRS)
Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)West Haven Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (WHYMPI)/MPIMultidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI)
The 12 item- Short Form Health Survey version 2 (SF-12v2): (Mental Composite Score (MCS), Role Emotion subscale (RE), Social Function subscale (SF), Vitality subscale (VT), Mental Health subscale (MH); Physical Composite Scale (PCS), General Health subscale (GH), Role Physical subscale (RP), Physical Function subscale (PF), Bodily Pain subscale (BP)
Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS)Profile of mood state (POMS-2A)Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)State Measure of Affect, Pain, and ControlSurvey of Pain Attitudes (SOPA)
Nathan et al., (2017)Otis et al., (2013); Pfammatter, (2012)Kerns, (2015)
Nathan et al., (2017)Otis et al., (2013)Kerns, (2015)
Nathan et al., (2017)
Otis et al., (2013); Kerns, (2015)Nathan et al., (2017)Nathan et al., (2017)Nathan et al., (2017); Vedhara et al., (2012)Nathan et al., (2017)Pfammatter, (2012)Pfammatter, (2012)
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy 17
Outcome Outcome measure Study IDPsychosocial functioning
Footwear adherence
Significant Other Scale (SOS)Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ)Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA)
Self-reported questionnaire
Vedhara et al., (2012)Vedhara et al., (2012)Vedhara et al., (2012)
Skafjeld et al., (2015)
Other measurements Non-PROMsFootwear adherence
Incidence of foot ulcer
Skin temperature monitoring
‘@monitor
Wagner classification
Thermometer
Keukenkamp et al., (2018)
Skafjeld et al., (2015)
Skafjeld et al., (2015)
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Risk of bias and GRADE assessment
Internal reliability assessments are presented in Figure 2 with full judgements for each
study provided as online supplementary information (Appendix A). Among the nine studies
five were pilot studies with sample sizes insufficient to detect the effectiveness of
interventions. Four studies scored high risk of bias for not blinding participants, personnel or
outcome assessors, two studies scored high risk of bias for high subject attrition rates, and
five studies had inadequate quality reporting. Only one study had no risk of bias, however,
the investigators stopped recruiting participants before attaining the sample size calculated to
detect effectiveness (Nathan et al., 2017). GRADE rankings were performed for each
outcome, all of which were graded as low quality due to serious imprecisions and serious
limitations but no serious inconsistencies or serious indirectness. All outcomes in this study
had very wide confidence intervals denoting imprecision in results. Publication bias could not
be assessed due to the small number of studies. Judgements for rating and ranking evidence
followed GRADE assessment criteria (Balshem et al., 2011).
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Figure 2 Risk of bias summary and graph
Effect of interventions
Meta-analyses were performed on short-term follow-up pain severity and pain
interference scores in four studies, QoL in two studies and depressive symptoms in three
studies. Additionally, two studies provided data for medium-term follow-up for pain severity,
pain interference and depressive symptoms (Figure 3). A narrative synthesis is provided for
seven studies. In cases where interventions did not reach statistical significance this does not
mean that the intervention had 'a negligible' or 'no effect'. Indeed, positive but non-significant
results were described by authors as 'clinically meaningful' and may, with more robust
research designs on larger samples, reach statistical significance.
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Figure 3 Meta-analyses - Outcomes: Pain severity (1.1.1 & 1.1.2), pain interference (1.1.3 &
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
1.1.4), depressive symptoms (1.1.5 &1.1.6), quality of life (1.2.1); Sensitivity analysis
(1.3.1).
Pain severity
Overall scores at short-term (Ghavami et al., 2018; Kerns, 2015; Nathan et al., 2017;
Otis et al., 2013) and medium-term follow-up (Nathan et al., 2017; Otis et al., 2013)
generated large effect sizes favoring psychological interventions (SMD= -0.94, 95%CI[-1.50,
-0.37], Z=3.25, p=.001, I2=68% [analysis 1.1.1] and, SMD= -1.26, 95%CI[-1.76, -0.77],
Z=5.03, p<.00001, I2=0% [analysis 1.1.2]) respectively. Pain severity significantly decreased
with counselling (Ghavami et al., 2018) and MBSR (Nathan et al., 2017) at short-term while
patients receiving MBSR (Nathan et al., 2017) or CBT (Otis et al., 2013) reported
significantly less pain severity at medium-term follow-up compared to usual care.
Additionally, two studies reported no reductions in pain severity following mindfulness
meditation (Teixeira, 2010) or Thermal Biofeedback Assisted Relaxation (Pfammatter, 2012)
at short-term compared with an attention placebo group. A further study of an unspecified
CBT intervention reported no difference in pain severity levels between experimental and
control group at long-term follow-up (Kerns, 2015).
Pain interference
Overall results generated a small effect size at short-term follow-up (Kerns, 2015;
Nathan et al., 2017; Otis et al., 2013; Teixeira, 2010) (SMD= -0.39, 95%CI[-0.73, -0.05],
Z=2.27, p=.02, I2=0% [analysis 1.1.3]) and a large effect size at medium-term follow-up
(Nathan et al., 2017; Otis et al., 2013) (SMD= -0.91, 95%CI[-1.61, -0.21], Z=2.54, p=.01, I2
=35% [analysis 1.1.4]) favoring psychological interventions. MBSR (Nathan et al., 2017) and
CBT (Otis et al., 2013) significantly decreased pain interference at medium-term follow-up
and the unspecified CBT intervention resulted in less pain interference among experimental
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
subjects compared to controls at long-term follow-up (MD= -0.93, 95%CI[-1.70, -0.16],
Z=2.38, p=.02) (Kerns, 2015).
Depressive symptoms
Experimental subjects reported an overall significant improvement in depressive
symptoms at short-term (Kerns, 2015; Nathan et al., 2017: Otis et al., 2013) and medium-
term follow-up (Nathan et al., 2017: Otis et al., 2013), with moderate effect sizes (SMD= -
0.58, 95%CI[-0.95, -0.21], Z=3.09, p=.002, I2 =0% [analysis 1.1.5], and SMD= -0.76,
95%CI[-1.48, -0.05], Z=2.10, p=.04, I2=44% [analysis 1.1.6]) respectively. In these two
analyses, participants receiving MBSR (Nathan et al., 2017) reported a significant decrease in
depressive symptoms at short-term and medium-term follow-up compared to control group.
Additionally, the unspecified CBT intervention reported improvements in the experimental
group compared to controls at long-term follow-up, but results did not reach statistical
significance (MD= -4.15, 95%CI[-9.37, 1.07], Z=1.56, p=.12) (Kerns, 2015).
Quality of life
Short-term follow-up QoL scores (Nathan et al., 2017; Teixeira, 2010) showed an
overall significant improvement following psychological interventions compared to controls
(MD= -2.35, 95%CI[-3.99, -0.71], Z=2.82, p=.005, I2 =0% [analysis 1.2.1]). In this meta-
analysis only experimental subjects receiving MBSR (Nathan et al., 2017) attained
statistically significant improvements in QoL compared with control group. At medium-term
follow-up only Nathan et al. (2017) reported QoL outcomes which also indicated statistically
significant improvements for subjects receiving MBSR compared with controls (MD= -3.10,
95%CI[-4.77, -1.43], Z=3.64, p=.0003).
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Mood
Participants receiving CBT reported significant improvements in mood at short-term
(MD= -13.00, 95%CI[-24.27, -1.73], Z=2.26, p=.02) and long-term follow-up (MD= -10.20,
95%CI[-18.70, -1.70], Z=2.35, p=.02) (Vedhara et al., 2012). Participants receiving MBSR
reported promising improvements in mood at short-term (MD= -12.38, 95%CI[-30.90, 6.14],
Z=1.31, p=.19) and at medium-term follow-up (MD= -15.28, 95%CI[-33.80, 3.24], Z=1.62,
p=.11) compared with usual care, but these scores didn’t reach statistical significance (Nathan
et al., 2017).
Psychosocial functioning
Self-care behaviors at short-term follow-up were significantly improved following
CBT (MD= 12.80, 95%CI[1.09, 24.51], Z=2.14, p=.03), whilst social support improvements
approached significance (p=.07) and no difference between groups was reported for illness
cognition (p=.97) (Vedhara et al., 2012). Additionally, at long-term follow-up, CBT
significantly improved self-care behaviors (MD= 14.80, 95%CI [1.92, 27.68], Z=2.25,
p=.02), while social support and illness cognition showed promising improvements but scores
did not reach significance (p=.14 and p=.26 respectively) (Vedhara et al., 2012). Perceived
control did not significantly improve with Thermal Biofeedback Assisted Relaxation at short-
term follow-up (Pfammatter, 2012).
Pain catastrophizing
Pain catastrophizing significantly decreased following MBSR at short-term (MD= -
7.88, 95%CI[-12.56, -3.20], Z=3.30, p=.001) and at medium-term follow-up (MD= -12.36,
95%CI[-17.04, -7.68], Z=5.18, p< .00001) (Nathan et al., 2017).
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Perceived stress
Perceived stress decreased in the MBSR group at short-term follow-up approaching
significance (MD= -3.33, 95%CI[-6.94, 0.28], Z=1.81, p=.07), and significantly decreased at
medium-term follow-up compared with usual care (MD= -6.39, 95%CI[-10.00, -2.78],
Z=3.47, p=.0005) (Nathan et al., 2017).
Footwear adherence
Motivational interviewing improved footwear adherence at short-term but this was not
maintained at medium-term follow-up compared with an education group (Keukenkamp et
al., 2018). Compared with usual care, footwear adherence did not improve with counselling
at long-term follow-up (Skafjeld et al., 2015).
Incidence of foot ulcers
Foot ulcer incidence did not significantly decrease at long-term follow-up (Skafjeld et
al., 2015).
Sleep
Sleep did not improve in a mindfulness meditation group compared with an attention
placebo group at short-term follow-up (Teixeira, 2010).
Sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis for pain severity outcomes was performed to determine if
temporary exclusion from the meta-analysis of certain studies influenced the treatment effect
(Polit & Beck, 2012). Pain severity scores were not reported separately by Ghavami et al.
(2018) but were included in the overall DPN severity score. This study was included in the
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
meta-analysis as it followed the same direction of effect. The study by Teixeira (2010)
showed unfavorable results for experimental subjects and followed the opposite effect
direction to other studies turning favorable results negative. This study was removed and only
four studies were pooled for analysis (Figure 3 analysis 1.3.1).
Discussion
Findings from this review suggest that psychological interventions can have a
significant beneficial effect on pain severity, pain interference, depressive symptoms and
QoL in adults with DPN. Pain severity and pain interference levels were significantly lower
in the MBSR and CBT groups compared with usual care. MBSR also improved QoL and
reduced depressive symptoms at short-term and medium-term follow-up. Additionally,
MBSR was associated with decreased pain catastrophizing and perceived stress at both time
points.
CBT was associated with improvements in mood at short-term and long-term follow-
up, while MBSR showed promising improvements in mood at short-term and medium-term
follow-up. CBT also significantly improved self-care behaviors and showed promising results
for social support and illness cognition at short-term and long-term follow-up.
Although non-significant relationships were reported between some interventions and
outcome measures, such as sleep patterns and mindfulness meditation at short-term follow-
up, they may still be considered clinically meaningful. For example, the short-term benefits
of MI on adherence to the use of custom-made footwear in the home environment.
Furthermore, the psychological interventions were safe with no studies reporting worsening
of symptoms or other detrimental effects on the progression of DPN. Low attrition rates were
also reported among experimental group samples suggesting that the interventions were well
received and that they were feasible treatment options.
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Findings compared with the wider literature
The findings of this review are consistent with the wider psychological literature on
chronic pain management. Meta-analyses have demonstrated the efficacy of CBT and MBSR
to lessen painful symptoms across a range of chronic pain populations (Hoffman, Papas,
Chatkoff, & Kerns, 2007; Grossman, Niemann, Schmidt, & Walach, 2004). More recent
reviews appear to shore up these findings. For example, mindfulness (Veehof, Trompetter,
Bohlmeijer, & Schreurs, 2016) and CBT interventions (Richmond et al., 2015) for chronic
pain and lower back pain respectively resulted in significant beneficial effects on pain levels
that echo the findings of this review.
Collectively, these findings support a biopsychosocial model of pain, which posits
that the experience of pain is moderated by affective and cognitive processes in the central
nervous system and not just levels of nociceptor activation (Gatchel, Peng, Peters, Fuchs, &
Turk, 2007). On that basis the positive findings from this review provide evidence for the
mediating effects of MBSR and CBT on the experience of pain and on the physical and
emotional consequences of living with chronic pain.
Limitations
The nine studies contained in this review had small sample sizes; the risk of a Type II
error is therefore high and was acknowledged by a number of authors. Measurements were
performed at various points in time and assessment instruments were highly variable.
Additionally, the studies reported wide confidence intervals denoting imprecise results.
Although difficult to generalize the effect of the psychological interventions, significant
relationships commensurate with the wider psychological literature were reported. This
provides some confidence in the results which are also supported by the biopsychosocial
model of pain.
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Although publication bias was minimized by searching for unpublished studies no
search strategy can retrieve 100% of relevant articles. This review may therefore be affected
by a publication bias that could not be assessed on a funnel plot due to the limited number of
included studies. Consequently, it is difficult to estimate whether the results of possible
undetected studies might influence the review findings.
The aforementioned methodological quality of papers is a limitation with more than
30% of domains scoring unclear risk of bias. When interpreting the review findings, it should
be taken into consideration that more than 50% of studies did not blind participants,
personnel or outcome assessors. Authors did not report the costs of the psychological
interventions although some judged them to be low cost. However, without such data it is not
possible to judge the benefit of these interventions in relation to each other and when
compared with other treatments including the pharmacological management of pain.
Implications for nursing practice and research
First line treatment for neuropathic pain is typically pharmacological interventions
that carry the risk of adverse effects and the development of tolerance and dependence over
time. The results of this review suggest that nursing staff might expect patients with DPN to
benefit from psychological interventions either to augment medication or to be trialed as an
initial alternative. Significant challenges will be the availability and integration of
psychological approaches to pain management within traditional care. However, it should be
noted that the MBSR and CBT programs used in the studies by Nathan et al. (2017) and Otis
et al. (2013) respectively were established community programs, and in the latter case, study
participants followed a protocol for chronic pain management that was not tailored
specifically for patients with DPN. Nursing staff are beholden therefore to research local
community resources, educate their patients on the potential benefits of psychological
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
interventions for pain management, signpost patients to available resources when appropriate,
and advocate for the integration of these treatment options within existing care pathways.
DPN is painful, highly prevalent and challenging to manage pharmacologically.
Further investigation of psychological interventions is therefore warranted. This review
represents an important step in the systematic appraisal of available evidence and points to
the value of further work. However, given the low quality of current evidence, larger trials
with sufficient statistical power are needed to confirm or refute the effectiveness of these
interventions on the experience of pain and their impact on the quality of life of people with
DPN. In particular, CBT and MBSR have demonstrated the potential to improve DPN
management and, if researched with more robust methodologies, might provide increased
confidence for the interventions’ effectiveness.
Conclusions
Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) impacts on individuals’ physical and
psychosocial wellbeing, and is the cause of all diabetic foot disease in people with diabetes.
Managing DPN at an earlier stage in its development to lessen its impact on quality of life
may impact on positive self-care and therefore prevent the development of diabetic foot
disease.
This review suggests that by augmenting pharmacological treatment with
psychological interventions, adults with diabetes can benefit from better DPN management.
However, there was insufficient evidence to confidently interpret the effect size of the
psychological interventions. Nevertheless, this systematic review demonstrates that the
known relationships between pain and perceived control among other groups who experience
chronic pain may also be replicated in the DPN population. This is an important finding that
can guide further research and associated service developments.
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the contribution to Iain Ryrie for his reading and advice on
the manuscript.
Declarations of interest
None
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
References
Amato Nesbit, S., Sharma, R., Waldfogel, J. M., Zhang, A., Bennett, W. L., Yeh, H. C., ... &
Dy, S. M. (2019). Non-pharmacologic treatments for symptoms of diabetic peripheral
neuropathy: a systematic review. Current medical research and opinion, 35(1), 15-25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2018.1497958
Balshem, H., Helfand, M., Schünemann, H. J., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., ... &
Guyatt, G. H. (2011). GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. Journal
of clinical epidemiology, 64(4), 401-406.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015
Benzon, H. T., Rathmell, J. P., Wu, C. L., Turk, D. C., Argoff, C. E., & Hurley, R. W.
(2013). Practical Management of Pain: Fifth Edition. Elsevier Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-64063-0
Breivik, H., Eisenberg, E., & O’Brien, T. (2013). The individual and societal burden of
chronic pain in Europe: the case for strategic prioritisation and action to improve
knowledge and availability of appropriate care. BMC public health, 13(1), 1229.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-1229
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York:
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Diabetes UK. (2017). Putting feet first: Six step guide to improving diabetes footcare.
Available at:
https://diabetes-resources-production.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/diabetes-
storage/2017-08/Putting%20feet%20first%206%20steps.pdf (Accessed April 2020).
Fisher, L., Mullan, J. T., Arean, P., Glasgow, R. E., Hessler, D., & Masharani, U. (2010).
Diabetes distress but not clinical depression or depressive symptoms is associated
with glycemic control in both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Diabetes
care, 33(1), 23-28. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc09-1238
Funnell, M. M. (2014). Managing the pain of diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Nursing2019,
44(7), 64-65. doi:10.1097/01.NURSE.0000450796.48967.ea
Gatchel, R. J., Peng, Y. B., Peters, M. L., Fuchs, P. N., & Turk, D. C. (2007). The
biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain: scientific advances and future directions.
Psychological bulletin, 133(4), 581-624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.581
Ghavami, H., Radfar, M., Soheily, S., Shamsi, S.A., & Khalkhali, H.R. (2018). Effect of
lifestyle interventions on diabetic peripheral neuropathy in patients with type 2
diabetes, result of a randomized clinical trial. Agri, 30(4), 165-170.
https://doi.org/10.5505/agri.2018.45477
Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress
reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis. Journal of psychosomatic research,
57(1), 35-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00573-7
Hershey, D. S. (2017). Diabetic peripheral neuropathy: evaluation and management. The
Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 13(3), 199-204.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2016.08.034
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Higgins, J.P. & Green, S. (eds) (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration.
Available at: www.handbook.cochrane.org. (accessed July 2019)
Hoffman, B. M., Papas, R. K., Chatkoff, D. K., & Kerns, R. D. (2007). Meta-analysis of
psychological interventions for chronic low back pain. Health psychology, 26(1), 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.26.1.1
Keukenkamp, R., Merkx, M. J., Busch-Westbroek, T. E., & Bus, S. A. (2018). An explorative
study on the efficacy and feasibility of the use of motivational interviewing to
improve footwear adherence in persons with diabetes at high risk for foot ulceration.
Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association, 108(2), 90-99.
https://doi.org/10.7547/16-171
Kerns, R.D. (2015) Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Diabetic Neuropathic Pain. VA
Connecticut Healthcare System. NCT number: 00829387. Available at
www.Clinicaltrials.gov. Unpublished. (accessed June 2019).
Mishra, S. C., Chhatbar, K. C., Kashikar, A., & Mehndiratta, A. (2017). Diabetic foot. The
British Medical Journal, 359, j5064. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j5064
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Altman, D., Antes, G., ... & Clark, J.
(2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The
PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264-269.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Nathan, H. J., Poulin, P., Wozny, D., Taljaard, M., Smyth, C., Gilron, I., ... & Shergill, Y.
(2017). Randomized trial of the effect of mindfulness-based stress reduction on pain-
related disability, pain intensity, health-related quality of life, and A1C in patients
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Clinical Diabetes, 35(5), 294-304.
https://doi.org/10.2337/cd17-0077
Nijs, J., Clark, J., Malfliet, A., Ickmans, K., Voogt, L., Don, S., ... & Dankaerts, W. (2017).
In the spine or in the brain? Recent advances in pain neuroscience applied in the
intervention for low back pain. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 35(5), 108-
115.
Otis, J. D., Sanderson, K., Hardway, C., Pincus, M., Tun, C., & Soumekh, S. (2013). A
randomized controlled pilot study of a cognitive-behavioral therapy approach for
painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. The Journal of Pain, 14(5), 475-482.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2012.12.013
Pfammatter, A.F. (2012). A placebo-controlled trial of thermal biofeedback assisted
relaxation for the treatment of diabetic neuropathy: An evaluation of outcomes and
mechanisms (PhD Thesis, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science,
USA).
Polit, D.F. & Beck, C.T. (2012). Quantitative research design. Nursing research: Generating
and assessing evidence for nursing practice. (9th ed). Wolters Kluger/Lippincot
Williams & Wilkins, London.
RevMan. Review Manager version 5.3 Cochrane Collaboration’s Software. Available at
http://www.cochrane.org (accessed July 2019).
Richmond, H., Hall, A. M., Copsey, B., Hansen, Z., Williamson, E., Hoxey-Thomas, N., ... &
Lamb, S. E. (2015). The effectiveness of cognitive behavioural treatment for non-
specific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one, 10(8).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134192
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Sackett, D.L., Richardson, W.S., Rosenberg, W. & Haynes, R.B. (1997). Evidence-based
Medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone, New York.
Sielski, R., Rief, W., & Glombiewski, J. A. (2017). Efficacy of biofeedback in chronic back
pain: a meta-analysis. International journal of behavioral medicine, 24(1), 25-41.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-016-9572-9
Skafjeld, A., Iversen, M. M., Holme, I., Ribu, L., Hvaal, K., & Kilhovd, B. K. (2015). A pilot
study testing the feasibility of skin temperature monitoring to reduce recurrent foot
ulcers in patients with diabetes–a randomized controlled trial. BMC endocrine
disorders, 15(1),55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-015-0054-x
Teixeira, E. (2010). The effect of mindfulness meditation on painful diabetic peripheral
neuropathy in adults older than 50 years. Holistic Nursing Practice, 24(5), 277-283.
doi:10.1097/HNP.0b013e3181f1add2
Tesfaye, S., Vileikyte, L., Rayman, G., Sindrup, S. H., Perkins, B. A., Baconja, M., ... &
Toronto Expert Panel on Diabetic Neuropathy. (2011). Painful diabetic peripheral
neuropathy: consensus recommendations on diagnosis, assessment and management.
Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews, 27(7), 629-638.
https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.1225
Theadom, A., Cropley, M., Smith, H. E., Feigin, V. L., & McPherson, K. (2015). Mind and
body therapy for fibromyalgia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (4).
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001980.pub3
Tovote, K. A., Schroevers, M. J., Snippe, E., Emmelkamp, P. M., Links, T. P., Sanderman,
R., & Fleer, J. (2017). What works best for whom? Cognitive Behavior Therapy and
Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for depressive symptoms in patients with
diabetes. PloS one, 12(6). DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0179941
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Turk, D. C., Audette, J., Levy, R. M., Mackey, S. C., & Stanos, S. (2010). Assessment and
treatment of psychosocial comorbidities in patients with neuropathic pain. In Mayo
Clinic Proceedings, 85(3), S42-S50. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.4065/mcp.2009.0648
Turk, D.C., Wilson, H.D. & Cahana, A. (2011). Treatment of chronic non-cancer pain. The
Lancet, 377(9784), 2226-2235. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60402-9
Vedhara, K., Beattie, A., Metcalfe, C., Roche, S., Weinman, J., Cullum, N., ... & Chalder, T.
(2012). Development and preliminary evaluation of a psychosocial intervention for
modifying psychosocial risk factors associated with foot re-ulceration in diabetes.
Behaviour research and therapy, 50(5), 323-332.
h ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2012.02.013
Veehof, M. M., Trompetter, H. R., Bohlmeijer, E. T., & Schreurs, K. M. G. (2016).
Acceptance-and mindfulness-based interventions for the treatment of chronic pain: a
meta-analytic review. Cognitive behaviour therapy, 45(1), 5-31.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2015.1098724
Zelman, D. C., Gore, M., Dukes, E., Tai, K. S., & Brandenburg, N. (2005). Validation of a
modified version of the Brief Pain Inventory for painful diabetic peripheral
neuropathy. Journal of Vascular Nursing, 23(3),97-104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvn.2005.06.004
Zhang, K., Tang, Q. L., & Gao, C. (2019). Non-pharmacologic treatments for symptoms of
diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review–methodological issues are a
matter for concern. Current medical research and opinion, 35(7), 1319-1320.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2019.1598135
Zhang, W., Li, S. & Zheng, X. (2013). Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of multiple lower
extremity nerve decompression in diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Journal of
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Neurological Surgery Part A: Central European Neurosurgery, 74(02), 096-100.
DOI:10.1055/s-0032-1320029
Appendix A
Risk of bias assessment for each studyGhavami 2018
Criteria Authors' judgement
Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)
Low Quote: "Eligible participants were systematically randomized by computer into the control or lifestyle intervention group"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Unclear Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
Unclear Not reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
Unclear Not reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
Low Attrition clearly described 3 (7.5%) participants from each arm discontinued participation. Complete outcome data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)
Unclear Protocol number not provided. Insufficient information to permit a judgement
Other bias Unclear Baseline characteristics for both groups were similar. Possible risk of bias: Participants enrolled from one hospital only & relatively short intervention time. Source of funding not stated.
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Kerns 2015
Bias Authors' judgement
Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)
Unclear Quote: "Participants will be randomized in equal numbers to the two conditions."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Unclear Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
Low Single masked-participants. Personnel not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
High Not reported. Probably not done. (single masked – participants)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
High Comment: Attrition clearly described. High rate of drop out at F/U 36 weeks assessment: 6 (26%) IG and 10(42%) CG. Intention to treat analysis not stated.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)
Low Comment: Study Protocol available (NCT01269502) and all outcomes are reported.
Other bias Unclear Quote: "There were no significant differences in demographics characteristics between the intervention and control groups at baseline." Conflicts of interest not stated.
Keukenkamp 2018
Bias Authors' judgement
Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)
Low Quote:" Patients were randomly assigned to either standard education (control group) or standard education plus two sessions of motivational interviewing (intervention group). Block randomization with variable block sizes was used."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Low Quote: "A sealed envelope randomization sequence was created and managed by an independent investigator."
Blinding of participants and
Low Quote: "Participants were not blinded to treatment allocation, but we blinded them at
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
personnel (performance bias)
baseline to the goal of monitoring treatment adherence. The participants’ rehabilitation medicine specialist was blinded to treatment allocation. Patients were asked not to disclose their study allocation to their rehabilitation medicine specialist"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
Unclear Not reported/ maybe yes? “The participants’ rehabilitation medicine specialist was blinded to treatment allocation”
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
Low Quote: “One participant in the intervention group withdrew. Two patients in the standard education group dropped out because of a fractured foot (n = 1) and death (n = 1). These events were not related to the study intervention”. Comment: high dropout rate but attrition clearly described: 1 (17%) IG and 2 (29%) CG lost to follow up.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)
Unclear Comment: Protocol number not provided. Insufficient information provided to permit a judgement
Other bias Low Comment: No significant differences between groups at baseline. The study appears to be free of other sources of bias.
Nathan 2017
Bias Authors' judgement
Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)
Low Quote: "Patients were randomly allocated to a waiting list or MBSR using computer-generated random numbers in a permuted block design with randomly varying block lengths. Allocations were stratified by type 1 or type 2 diabetes and by pain severity as indicated by an average of the four pain-severity numeric rating scales of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Low Comment: Concealed by opaque envelope.
Blinding of participants and
Low Quote: "Allocations were generated by an independent statistician and concealed from
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
personnel (performance bias)
investigators and treating physicians. Treatment allocation occurred as close as possible to the start of the MBSR course when the next consecutively numbered opaque envelope for the appropriate strata was opened".
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
Low Quote: “Allocations were generated by an independent statistician and concealed from investigators and treating physicians.”
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
Low Comment: Attrition clearly described: 3 (9%) participants withdrew from IG and 1 (3%) participant withdrew from CG.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)
Low Comment: Protocol available (NCT02127762) and all outcomes reported.
Other bias Low Comment: No significant differences between groups at baseline. The study appears to be free of other sources of bias.
Otis 2013
Bias Authors' judgement
Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)
Low Quote: "participants were randomized via flip of a coin to 1 of the treatment conditions: CBT versus TAU."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Unclear Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
High Comment: participants and investigators not blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
High Not reported. Probably not done.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
Low High attrition rate in IG 3 (27%) discontinued participation but this was clearly described and attrition was not related to the intervention.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)
Unclear Comment: Protocol not provided (the study followed the CONSORT of reporting trials). Insufficient information provided to permit a
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
judgement
Other bias Low Comment: Study participants similar at baseline characteristics. Incentives to participants reported.
Pfammatter 2012
Bias Authors' judgement
Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)
Unclear Quote: "Participants were randomly assigned to one of the groups"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Unclear Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
Low Single - participants
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
High Not reported. Probably not done.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
High Quote: “The current study suffered from low recruitment as well as many participants withdrawing from the study.”Comment: Very high attrition rate and although this was described no reasons were given. 32 randomized/ 21 analysed, 6 (37.5%) dropped out from IG, and 5 (31%) dropped out from CG.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)
Low Comment: study protocol available NCT00858351 and all outcomes are reported.
Other bias Unclear Quote: there were no significant baseline differences between groups on Haemoglobin A1C, age, measures of pain, measures of control, or temperature in any limb.” Conflicts of interest not stated.
Skafjeld 2015
Bias Authors' judgement
Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection
Low Quote: "Block randomization was used to assign each four subjects to blocks with two
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
bias) in each group. Randomization was stratified for patients with a history of Charcot foot, who have an extra high risk of recurrence."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Unclear Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
High Comment: clearly stated - single blinded- assessors (hence participants and personnel not blinded)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
Low Comment: single blinded- assessors
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
Low Comment: Attrition reported: 3(7.3%) CG, dropped out. Analysis performed for all participants randomized.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)
Low Comment: Study Protocol provided (NCT01269502) and all outcomes are reported.
Other bias Low Quote: "There were no significant differences in demographics characteristics between the intervention and control groups at baseline."
Teixeira 2010
Bias Authors' judgement
Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)
Low Quote: "A convenience sample of 22 adults with diabetes who described symptoms of PDPN participated in this pilotstudy. Participants were assigned by random number assignment to either the intervention group (Group A) or attention-placebo group (Group B)".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Unclear Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
Unclear Not reported
Blinding of outcome Unclear Not reported
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
assessment (detection bias)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
Low Comment: Attrition clearly described. One participant in each group dropped out.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)
Unclear Protocol not provided. Insufficient information provided to permit a judgement. Baseline data, not provided, for the outcomes.
Other bias Unclear Baseline data did not differ between groups. Incentives to participants reported. Source of funding and conflicts of interest not stated.
Vedhara 2012
Bias Authors' judgement
Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)
Unclear Quote: "eligible individuals were randomized 2:1 to the intervention or control groups" Comment: Randomization method not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)
Unclear Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
Unclear Not reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
Low Comment: Interviews transcripts anonymised and coded; assessor did not participate in intervention.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
Low Comment: high attrition in the intervention group (20%) but this was clearly described: 2 participants randomized to IG withdrew before the intervention commencement.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)
high Comment: study protocol available ISRCTN17915181 available at https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17915181. Not all outcomes reported: (SF-12, HADS), intervention duration = 10 weeks instead of 13 weeks.
Other bias Low Nothing detected
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy