Total neuropathy score
Validation and reliability study
Citation Manager Formats
Make Comment
See Comments

Abstract
Objective: To determine the validity and reliability of the total neuropathy score (TNS) in normal subjects and in subjects with diabetic polyneuropathy.
Background: Clinical research in peripheral neuropathy requires validated outcome measures. Multiple outcome measures have been used in clinical trials, including symptom measures, functional scales, quantitative clinical examinations, nerve conduction studies, computerized sensory examinations, and nerve biopsy. Each of these measures has its strengths and weaknesses. In two previous studies of toxic neuropathy from chemotherapeutic agents, the authors used the TNS as the outcome measure. The TNS combines information obtained from grading of symptoms, signs, nerve conduction studies, and quantitative sensory tests, and provides a single measure to quantify neuropathy.
Methods: The authors measured the inter- and intrarater reliability of the TNS and preformed a cross-sectional validation study of the TNS and its subscales with the Mayo Clinic measures of neuropathy, neuropathy symptom score (NSS), and the neurologic impairment score (NIS) in five healthy control subjects and 30 individuals with varying severities of diabetic polyneuropathy.
Results: Inter- and intrarater reliability of the TNS was excellent (0.966 and 0.986 respectively). The cross-sectional validation study showed excellent correlations among all measures of neuropathy.
Conclusions: The total neuropathy score is a validated measure of peripheral nerve function and could be used as an end point for clinical trials of peripheral neuropathy.
Clinical research in peripheral neuropathy requires easily performed, low-cost, noninvasive, reliable, and validated measures of peripheral nerve function. Among the presently available scales of peripheral nerve function,1-5 the most widely used are those from Dyck et al.: neuropathy symptom score (NSS),6,7 neurologic symptom profile (NSP),8 and neurologic impairment score (NIS).7 NSS and NSP assess sensory, motor, and autonomic symptoms; NIS grades the neurologic examination for sensory and motor function and reflexes. Abnormalities in any two or more among NSS, NIS, nerve conduction (NC) studies, or quantitative sensory tests (QSTs) are required for defining the presence or absence of neuropathy.9 This system was designed primarily to increase the sensitivity of detecting diabetic neuropathy in a cross-section of a population of patients with diabetes, and to give a uniform system of staging neuropathy. It has been validated by use of simultaneous sural nerve biopsies.10 However, this grading system has the following drawbacks:
-
1. Although the individual measures of neuropathy are quite detailed, each measures only one aspect of peripheral nerve function.
-
2. Because the scales measure many aspects of neuropathy, scoring in the most common type of neuropathy—distal length-dependent polyneuropathy—is diluted.
-
3. A composite scale including different measures of neuropathy and grading of neuropathy is not obtained.
-
4. Performance of the entire battery of tests can take several hours.
-
5. Both NSP and QST (using CASE IV; WR Electronics, Stillwater, MN) require analysis by specialized computer programs.
We developed a composite measure of peripheral nerve function entitled the total neuropathy score (TNS; table 1) and have used it previously in prospective studies of toxic neuropathies.11,12 The TNS combines information obtained from grading of symptoms, signs, NC studies, and QST (using Vibratron II; Physitemp Instruments, Inc., Clifton, NJ), and provides a comprehensive and easily obtained measure for detecting and quantifying peripheral neuropathy. However, the TNS has not been validated systematically. In this study, we determined the inter- and intrarater reliability of the TNS and performed a cross-sectional validation study of the TNS and its subscales with the NSS and the NIS.
Total neuropathy score
Methods.
In this single-center study, subjects with diabetic polyneuropathy were drawn from the investigators’ practices. Baseline neuropathy was assessed before randomization by reviewing each subject’s symptoms with one of the investigators. Healthy male and female subjects between 18 and 75 years of age without evidence of neuropathy or with mild, moderate, or severe diabetic polyneuropathy were selected to represent the entire range of possible TNSs. All subjects gave written informed consent. The protocol was approved by the Joint Committee on Clinical Investigation of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins Hospital.
The randomization schedule was developed to balance the potential order effect of the evaluation sequence. Patients’ randomization were stratified by their screening diabetic polyneuropathy assessment: normal, mild, moderate, or severe. The evaluation sequence was then assigned randomly to each patient within a stratum according to a computer-generated randomization list balanced for rater (1 or 2) and order of procedures (TNS or NIS and NSS).
All testing was performed once at baseline and then 1 to 3 weeks thereafter, except for NC studies, for which reliability data already exists,13,14 and QSTs which were performed once at baseline.
Subjects were assessed by two raters independently at each visit. Raters did not communicate their findings to one another during the course of the study. NC studies were performed using our standard laboratory techniques using a Clark–Davis Advantage EMG machine (Toronto, Canada). Right sural sensory and peroneal motor nerves were studied with standardized techniques and fixed distances. The temperature was maintained at >32 °C. Vibratory thresholds were measured with Vibratron II (Physitemp Instruments, Inc.) at the right great toe and the index finger of the nondominant hand.
To assess properly the reliability of the TNS in quantifying the severity of neuropathy, only diabetic subjects were used to estimate the intrarater and interrater reliabilities.
The intrarater reliability of the TNS between visits was estimated based on data assessed by the same rater at both visits. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) approach was employed using a random-effect model to estimate the intrarater reliability for each rater. Overall intrarater reliability was assessed by ignoring rater distinction and pooling data from both raters. The interrater reliability of the TNS between raters was estimated based on data assessed by both raters at the same visit. An ANOVA approach was employed using a random-effect model. Per the study design, each subject was to be assessed by both raters only at one of the two study visits. The assessments collected at that particular visit were used for the estimation of the interrater reliability. Of the 30 diabetic patients with neuropathy, 15 patients were assessed by both raters at visit 1, and the other 15 were assessed at visit 2. Because both raters assessed the same patient at the same visit, data collected during visit 1 and visit 2 were considered “poolable” for the estimation of the overall interrater reliability. One-sided 95% CIs were also constructed for both the intra- and interrater reliability.15
For cross-sectional validation, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used for estimating the conformity between the TNS and the NIS and NSS, due to violations of normality. The measurement scores of the TNS and the NIS and NSS were ranked in an ascending order (the higher the rank the more severe the neuropathy). Averaged ranks were used in the events of ties. Estimates of Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient were calculated for all possible correlations among the TNS and its subscales with the NIS and NSS. A 95% CI was also constructed for each correlation coefficient.
Results.
A total of 35 subjects were enrolled and randomized into the four evaluation groups balanced by rater and the etiology (diabetic or healthy) and the severity of neuropathy to ensure that the entire range of the TNS and standard measurements would be represented in each group. As a result, 7, 10, 7, and 11 patients were assigned to the four evaluation groups respectively.
Of the 35 subjects, 30 were diabetic patients with neuropathy (10 each with mild, moderate, and severe neuropathy) and 5 were normal subjects. Demographics and baseline characteristics are presented in table 2.
Baseline characteristics
The overall TNS intrarater reliability was 0.973 (95% CI, ≥0.950), and the overall interrater reliability was 0.938 (95% CI, ≥0.836). Both intrarater and interrater reliability for the individual raters was high (table 3).
Intrarater and interrater reliability
The TNS and NIS, and the TNS and NSS were all correlated highly and positively (table 4). In addition, all the TNS subscales were correlated highly with the NSS and NIS (see table 4). The highest correlation of the NIS occurred with examination findings, and the highest correlation of the NSS occurred with symptom evaluation, although examination findings also correlated with the NSS.
Cross-sectional validation; Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients and 95% CIs
Discussion.
This study has demonstrated that the TNS is a valid measure of peripheral nerve function with high inter- and intrarater reliability, and high correlations to currently available and validated measures of neuropathy in patients with diabetes. The current TNS has been modified from the TNS that arose from our studies of chemotherapy-induced neuropathy in oncology patients.11,12 In designing a strategy for their serial neurologic evaluation, simple, inexpensive, and brief but sensitive measures of the onset and development of distal neuropathy were needed. Previously, there was no validated instrument that combined symptoms, signs, NC, and QST measures to give a composite picture of a patient’s neuropathy. The TNS provides such a composite.
Because we are interested mainly in distal length-dependent axonal neuropathy—the most prevalent form of polyneuropathy—patients are asked whether they have sensory or motor symptoms distally in the limbs, and are asked to define the severity of those symptoms. We believe that this is useful and different than the NSS and NSP. The TNS questions are specific for distally prominent neuropathies. There is no diluting effect of other, nondistal symptoms. The TNS symptom score grades the severity of the sensory, motor, or autonomic symptoms.
Like the symptom score system, the examination concentrates on addressing the presence and severity of distal length-dependent neuropathy. Dyck et al.16 and Feldman et al.2,3 have shown that distal sensation, strength, and reflexes are the most reproducible components of the NIS and the Michigan Diabetic Neuropathy Scale, and are predictive of diabetic neuropathy.17 Our method of distal neuropathy assessment is in agreement with these findings. This is also why we choose to give the examination findings the maximum weight in the TNS.
Because the emphasis of the TNS is on longitudinal assessment of distal length-dependent axonal neuropathy, we use a distal sensory (sural) and a distal motor (peroneal) amplitude measure in the TNS, and grade its severity. In most such neuropathies, latency and conduction velocity do not change much and thus do not reflect changes in the neuropathy. In addition, concentrating on these two measures alone allows us to discount unrelated NC changes (for example, those due to underlying entrapment neuropathy or radiculopathy). In fact, Dyck et al.10 have shown that sural amplitude and peroneal amplitude were correlated highly and significantly with the NSS, NDS, and, most importantly, with the neuropathology.
Lastly, the QST is a useful tool in quantifying small- and large-fiber dysfunction. Although several QST machines are now available, we use Vibratron II, an inexpensive and easy-to-use system, to assess large-fiber function.
The data from symptoms, signs, NC studies, and QSTs are each assigned a score depending on severity. Addition of these individual scores gives a TNS value that indicates the extent of neuropathy. In practice, the TNS works quite well and is a sensitive measure of peripheral nerve function. Moreover, as we have shown previously in our studies on toxic neuropathies,11,12 the TNS can be used to assess the progression of neuropathy longitudinally. We believe, therefore, that if a potential therapeutic intervention is purported to alter the progressive course of a distal dominant neuropathy, the TNS may be a useful tool to detect this.
We have chosen to validate the TNS against the NSS and NIS. Both these measures have been used frequently, including in clinical trials,18-22 and both have been validated against indices of neuropathology,10 which is considered the gold standard of peripheral nerve function. In the current study, the TNS is a valid measure of neuropathic impairment and it could be used in clinical trials in which the region of interest is the distal peripheral nerve. The TNS may not be as valuable in demyelinating neuropathies.
We have shown that the intra- and interrater reliability of the TNS is excellent. However, this was performed by two physicians (D.R.C., V.C.) who are experienced in the use of the TNS. Our results may need to be confirmed by other intra- and interrater reliability studies of larger numbers of physicians. However, we believe that any experienced neurologist can obtain TNSs reliably, because it is dependent on a standard neurologic evaluation.
We believe the TNS has important advantages over current methods used to evaluate peripheral neuropathy. The battery of studies is simple, direct, and brief. The symptom questionnaire takes approximately 3 minutes to complete, and the directed examination takes approximately 5 minutes. The NC study and the QST can be completed in approximately 30 minutes. These tests generate the primary data from which the TNS is derived. These studies are relatively inexpensive and use equipment that is readily available. The information collected concentrates on the presence and the development of distal neuropathy, which is common in many neuropathies. The TNS provides “on-line” data regarding a patient’s neuropathy, combining information from both subjective and objective test measures in a fashion not done previously. The data collected can be converted readily to a TNS value, which is available immediately. Lastly, an overall evaluation of the neuropathy is obtained, which correlates with individual measures.
Although we have validated the 10 component TNSs as shown in table 1, the TNS is potentially adaptable to suit other clinical situations in which the fiber population of interest may be different. For example, in clinical studies of painful, sensory neuropathies, select components of the TNS presented here could be replaced by others such as the symptom of pain (as opposed to worst sensory symptom), temperature sensation, or QST for cooling sensibility. The instrument used to assess QST and to quantify sensory symptoms and signs may need to be standardized as well. However, alterations such as these would require separate validation studies. In addition, with the development of new tools for assessment of peripheral neuropathy such as skin biopsy,23-25 we may be able to add another objective measure of small-fiber assessment. Because intraepidermal fiber density is quantifiable, a severity scoring system could be added to the TNS. We have also not included any objective measures of autonomic dysfunction in the TNS, and this may be necessary to aid in the assessment of neuropathies with prominent autonomic involvement.
With the validation of the TNS in diabetic neuropathy, we envision a number of future research opportunities. Although we have used the TNS successfully in monitoring and detecting the development of toxic neuropathy,11,12 the TNS has not been used in longitudinal studies of diabetic neuropathy, particularly in therapeutic studies. Additionally, determining the ability to generalize the TNS to other neuropathy populations would be useful. One of the most difficult challenges in future directions for the TNS is determination of the number of TNS points that translate into diagnosing different grades of severity of neuropathy and what constitutes a meaningful clinical change.26 We do not have data on this issue because that was not the point of this study nor our intention in developing the TNS. Because the TNS has proved useful in measuring the development of neuropathy in “healthy individuals” exposed to a potential neurotoxin, the TNS could also detect potentially the regression of neuropathy under suitable circumstances.
Acknowledgments
Supported by a grant from AMGEN-Regeneron Partners.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank Drs. J. Cedarbaum and N. Stambler for their helpful discussions.
- Received May 15, 1998.
- Accepted June 22, 1999.
References
- ↵
- ↵
Feldman EL, Stevens MJ. Clinical testing in diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Can J Neurol Sci 1994;21 (suppl 4):S3–S7.
- ↵
Feldman EL, Brown MB, Stevens MJ, Canal N, Thomas PK, Greene DA. A practical two-step quantitative clinical and electrophysiological assessment for the diagnosis and staging of diabetic neuropathy. Diabetes Care 1994;17:1281–1289.
- ↵
Molenaar DSM, de Haan R, Vermeulen M. Impairment, disability or handicap in peripheral neuropathy. Analysis of the use of outcome measures in clinical trials in patients with peripheral neuropathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1995;59:165–169.
- ↵
Dyck PJ, Bushek W, Spring EM, et al. Vibratory and cooling detection thresholds compared with other tests in diagnosing and staging diabetic neuropathy. Diabetes Care 1987;10:432–440.
- ↵
- ↵
Dyck PJ, Karnes J, O’Brien PC, Swanson CJ. Neuropathy symptom profile in health, motor neuron disease, diabetic neuropathy, and amyloidosis. Neurology 1986;36:1300–1308.
- ↵
Consensus statement of the American Diabetes Association and the American Academy of Neurology.Report and recommendations of the San Antonio conference on diabetic neuropathy. Diabetes 1988;37:1000–1004.
- ↵
Dyck PJ, Karnes JL, Daube J, O’Brien P, Service FJ. Clinical and neuropathological criteria for the diagnosis and staging of diabetic polyneuropathy. Brain 1985;108:861–880.
- ↵
- ↵
Chaudhry V, Eisenberger MA, Sinibaldi VJ, Sheikh K, Griffin JW, Cornblath DR. A prospective study of suramin-induced peripheral neuropathy. Brain 1996;119:2039–2052.
- ↵
- ↵
Chaudhry V, Corse AM, Freimer ML, et al. Inter- and intraexaminer reliability of nerve conduction measurements in patients with diabetic neuropathy. Neurology 1994;44:1459–1462.
- ↵
Fleiss JL. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York:Wiley, 1986.
- ↵
Dyck PJ, Kratz KM, Lehman KA, et al. The Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study: design, criteria for types of neuropathy, selection bias, and reproducibility of neuropathic tests. Neurology 1991;41:799–807.
- ↵
Dyck PJ, Karnes JL, O’Brien PC, Litchy WJ, Low PA, Melton LJ. The Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study: reassessment of tests and criteria for diagnosis and staged severity. Neurology 1992;42:1164–1170.
- ↵
-
Dyck PJ, O’Brien P, Swanson C, Low P, Daube J. Combined azathioprine and prednisone in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Neurology 1985;35:1173–1176.
- ↵
- ↵
McCarthy BG, Hsieh S-T, Stocks EA, et al. Cutaneous innervation in sensory neuropathies: evaluation by skin biopsy. Neurology 1995;45:1848–1855.
-
McArthur JC, Hsieh S-T, McCarthy B, et al. Quantitation of intraepidermal nerves in sensory neuropathies and after nerve transection using punch skin biopsy. Neurology 1994;44 (suppl 2):A275. Abstract.
- ↵
Holland NR, Stocks EA, Hauer P, Cornblath DR, Griffin JW, McArthur JC. Intraepidermal nerve fiber density in patients with painful sensory neuropathy. Neurology 1997;48:708–711.
- ↵
Dyck PJ, O’Brien PC. Meaningful degrees of prevention or improvement of nerve conduction in controlled clinical trials of diabetic neuropathy. Diabetes Care 1989;12:649–652.
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
You May Also be Interested in
Dr. David E. Vaillancourt and Dr. Shannon Y. Chiu
► Watch
Related Articles
- No related articles found.
Alert Me
Recommended articles
-
Articles
HIV neuropathy natural history cohort studyAssessment measures and risk factorsD. M. Simpson, D. Kitch, S. R. Evans et al.Neurology, June 12, 2006 -
Research Article
Large Mitochondrial DNA Deletions in HIV Sensory NeuropathyRicardo H. Roda, David Bargiela, Weiran Chen et al.Neurology, May 04, 2021 -
Articles
Correlates of epidermal nerve fiber densities in HIV-associated distal sensory polyneuropathyL. Zhou, D. W. Kitch, S. R. Evans et al.Neurology, June 11, 2007 -
Brief Communications
Toxic neuropathy in patients with pre-existing neuropathyV. Chaudhry, M. Chaudhry, T.O. Crawford et al.Neurology, January 28, 2003