The toe–brachial index (TBI) is used as an adjunct to the ankle–brachial index (ABI) for non-invasive lower limb vascular screening. With increasing evidence suggesting limitations of the ABI for diagnosis of vascular complications, particularly in specific populations including diabetes cohorts, the TBI is being used more widely. The aim of this review was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the TBI for detecting peripheral artery disease (PAD) in populations at risk of this disease. A database search was conducted to identify current work relating to the sensitivity and specificity of toe–brachial indices up to July 2015. Only studies using valid diagnostic imaging as a reference standard were included. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to critically appraise included articles. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Sensitivity of the TBI for PAD was reported in all seven studies and ranged from 45% to 100%; specificity was reported by five studies only and ranged from 16% to 100%. In conclusion, this review suggests that the TBI has variable diagnostic accuracy for the presence of PAD in specific populations at risk of developing the disease. There was a notable lack of large-scale diagnostic accuracy studies determining the diagnostic accuracy of the TBI in detecting PAD in different at-risk cohorts. However, standardised normal values need to be established for the TBI to conclusively determine the diagnostic accuracy of this test.

Background: The resting systolic toe pressure (TP) is a measure of small arterial function in the periphery. TP is used in addition to the ankle‐brachial index when screening for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) of the lower limb in those with diabetes, particularly in the presence of lower limb medial arterial calcification. It may be used as an adjunct assessment of lower limb vascular function and as a predictor of wound healing. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of TP for detecting PAD in people with and without diabetes.Methods: This was a retrospective case‐control study. Two researchers extracted information from consecutive patient records, including TP measurements, colour Duplex ultrasound results, demographic information, and medical history. Measures of diagnostic accuracy were determined by receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis, and calculation of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios.Results: Three hundred and nintey‐four participants with suspected PAD were included. In the diabetes group (n = 176), ROC analysis of TP for detecting PAD was 0.78 (95%CI: 0.69 to 0.84). In the control group (n = 218), the ROC of TP was 0.73 (95%CI: 0.70 to 0.80). TP had highest sensitivity when anatomical distribution of disease was both proximal and distal (diabetes group: 79.49%, the control group: 82.61%). TP yielded highest sensitivity in mild disease (50–75% stenosis) in diabetes group, (81.82%) and moderate disease (>75% stenosis) in control group (80.77%).Conclusions: Our findings indicate that TPs are useful to assist in diagnosing PAD in clinical practice, however, results should be interpreted with caution due to the small probability of PAD being present with a negative test.

The postexercise ankle–brachial index (ABI) is recommended in patients with normal resting ABI when peripheral artery disease (PAD) is suspected. The aims of this study were to determine the comparative diagnostic accuracy of the resting and postexercise ABI for detecting PAD, and, the effect of the presence of diabetes on these. Three methods of interpretation currently in use were also investigated: a reduction in postexercise ABI by >20% compared to resting ABI, an ABI value of ≤0.90 postexercise, or a reduction in systolic ankle pressure of >30 mmHg postexercise. This retrospective study used colour duplex ultrasound (CDU) as the reference standard. In 278 limbs (whole group), the resting ABI had an overall area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71, with the postexercise ABI yielding a similar diagnostic accuracy of AUC 0.72. In the non-diabetes group (n=171), the resting ABI had an overall AUC of 0.74 and the postexercise ABI had a similar AUC of 0.76. In the diabetes group (n=107), overall accuracy was reduced compared to the non-diabetes group, with the resting ABI having an overall AUC of 0.65 and the postexercise ABI yielding a similar accuracy with an AUC of 0.64. The overall diagnostic accuracy of the postexercise ABI for diagnosing PAD was not greatly improved compared to resting ABI. Given the lower overall diagnostic accuracy in the diabetes group, both the resting and the postexercise ABI results in diabetes populations should be interpreted with caution. There is a risk of undiagnosed disease if relying on these results alone to determine lower limb vascular status.

Background: Testing of protective sensation and vibration perception are two of the most commonly used non‐invasive methods of screening for diabetes‐related peripheral neuropathy (DPN). However, there is limited research investigating the reliability of these tests in people with diabetes. The aim of this study was to determine the inter‐ and intra‐rater reliability of methods used to test vibration perception and protective sensation in a community‐based population of adults with type 2 diabetes.Methods: Three podiatrists with varying clinical experience tested four‐ and 10‐site, 10 g monofilament and vibration perception threshold (VPT). In a separate cohort, the reliability of a graduated tuning fork as well as two methods of conventional tuning fork (on/off method and dampening method) was undertaken by a new graduate podiatrist and podiatrist with one‐year's clinical experience. The intra‐ (Cohen's К) and inter‐rater (Cohen's or Fleiss' К) reliability of each test was determined.Results: Fifty participants (66% male, 100% type 2, 32% with DPN) underwent monofilament and neurothesiometer testing with 44 returning for the retest. Twenty‐four participants (63% male, 100% type 2, 4% with DPN) underwent tuning fork testing and returned for retest. All tests demonstrated acceptable inter‐rater reliability ranging from moderate (10‐site monofilament, К: 0.54, CI: 0.38–0.70, p = 0.02) to substantial (graduated tuning fork, К: 0.68, CI: 0.41–0.95, p < 0.01). The 10‐site monofilament (К: 0.44–0.77) outperformed the 4‐site test (К: 0.34–0.67) and the dampened tuning fork method (К: 0.41–0.49) showed lower intra‐rater reliability compared to both conventional (К: 0.52–0.57) and graduated methods (К: 0.50–0.57).Conclusion: We support the current recommendations of using more than one test to screen and monitor progression of DPN. Four‐ and 10‐site 10 g monofilament testing have similarly acceptable levels of reliability and the neurothesiometer is the most reliable method of assessing vibration perception function. Use of a graduated tuning fork was slightly more reliable than other methods of tuning fork application however all had substantial reliability. Years of clinical experience only marginally affected test reliability overall and due to subjective nature of the tests we suggest that testing should be performed regularly and repetitively.