Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Alpha‐lipoic acid for diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012967.pub2Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 11 January 2024see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Neuromuscular Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Cristian Baicus

    Correspondence to: Internal Medicine, Colentina University Hospital, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania

    [email protected]

  • Adrian Purcarea

    Department of Fundamental, Prophylactic and Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Transilvania University, Brasov, Romania

    Internist.ro Clinic, Brasov, Romania

  • Erik von Elm

    Cochrane Switzerland, Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

  • Caterina Delcea

    Internal Medicine, Colentina University Hospital, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania

  • Florentina L Furtunescu

    Public Health and Management, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania

Contributions of authors

CB, CD, FF, AP and EvE conceived the review.
CB, CD, FF, AP and EvE designed the review.
CB and EvE co‐ordinated the review.
CB and CD collected the data for the review.
CD and CB screened the search results.
AP and FF performed the full‐text review and CB resolved any discrepancies.
CD and CB extracted data from papers.
CB wrote to the authors of the papers for additional information.
CD obtained and screened data on unpublished studies.
CB managed data for the review.
CB, CD, FF, and AP entered data into RevMan.
CB performed the data analysis.
CB, EvE, and FF interpreted the data.
FF and AP evaluated the risk of bias, and CB and EvE resolved discrepancies.
CB and EvE provided a methodological perspective.
CB, CD, FF, and AP provided a clinical perspective.
CB, CD, FF, and AP wrote the review.
EvE provided general advice on the review.
CB, CD, FF, AP, and EvE created the protocol on which the current review is based.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • None, Other

    None

External sources

  • None, Other

    None

Declarations of interest

CB: none known.
AP: none known.
EvE: none known.
CD: none known.
FLF: none known.

Acknowledgements

The Information Specialist of Cochrane Neuromuscular, Angela Gunn, developed the search strategy in consultation with the review authors, while Farhad Shokraneh performed the latest search.

The Methods section of the review protocol is based on a template developed by Cochrane Neuromuscular from an original created by the Cochrane Airways Group (Baicus 2018).

This project was supported by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to Cochrane Neuromuscular until 31 March 2023. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the review authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Evidence Synthesis Programme, the NIHR, the UK National Health Service (NHS), or the Department of Health and Social Care. Cochrane Neuromuscular was also supported by the MRC Centre for Neuromuscular Disease.

Editorial and peer‐reviewer contributions

The following people conducted the editorial process for this article.

  • Sign‐off Editor (final editorial decision): Colin Chalk, Department of Neurology & Neurosurgery, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

  • Managing Editor (selected peer reviewers, provided editorial guidance to authors, edited the article): Luisa M Fernandez Mauleffinch, Cochrane Central Editorial Service

  • Editorial Assistant (conducted editorial policy checks, collated peer‐reviewer comments and supported editorial team): Lisa Wydrzynski, Cochrane Central Editorial Service

  • Copy Editor (copy editing and production): Julia Turner, Cochrane Central Production Service

  • Peer‐reviewers (provided comments and recommended an editorial decision): Jennifer Hilgart, Cochrane (methods); Douglas M Salzwedel, Information Specialist, Cochrane Hypertension (search); Robert Wyllie (consumer); Professor Richard Hughes, King's College London (clinical). Two additional peer reviewers provided clinical peer review but chose not to be publicly acknowledged.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2024 Jan 11

Alpha‐lipoic acid for diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Review

Cristian Baicus, Adrian Purcarea, Erik Elm, Caterina Delcea, Florentina L Furtunescu

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012967.pub2

2018 Feb 22

Alpha‐lipoic acid for diabetic peripheral neuropathy

Protocol

Cristian Baicus, Adrian Purcarea, Erik von Elm, Caterina Delcea, Florentina L Furtunescu

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012967

Differences between protocol and review

See Baicus 2018 (protocol).

For consistency with other outcomes, we changed the label of the primary outcome from 'Improvement in neuropathy symptoms' to 'Change in neuropathy symptoms'.

For the secondary outcome 'Change in impairment', one validated scale mentioned in the protocol was the Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS; Baicus 2018). Two included studies used both the NIS and its subscale Neuropathy Impairment Score‐Lower Limbs (NIS‐LL; Ziegler 1999; Ziegler 2011), and we chose to use NIS‐LL because: 1) diabetic peripheral neuropathy mainly affects lower limbs; 2) for Analysis 1.4, we meta‐analysed NIS‐LL score with another impairment score, the Neuropathy Disability Score (NDS; Young 1993), which also refers only to lower limbs; and 3) the effects of interventions were similar for both NIS and NIS‐LL (Ziegler 1999; Ziegler 2011).

In the summary of findings table, we included 'Adverse events leading to cessation of treatment' instead of 'Any adverse event' because the included studies reported the more specific harms outcome.

We were unable to perform the planned subgroup analysis, because the sample sizes were small, and the information from the included studies was insufficient.

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.