The utility of Vibratip in accurate identification of loss of protective sensation in the contralateral foot of patients admitted with a diabetic foot ulcer.BACKGROUND AND AIMS
 We assessed the utility of novel device, vibratip, both singly and in combination with standard bedside tools for assessment of loss of protective sensation.


 Testing using 10 g Monofilament, Vibratip and biothesiometer were also done.  Considering the biothesiometer as the reference standard, three bedside tests (Vibratip, 10 g monofilament and 128 Hz tuning fork) were compared against it singly and in combinations.


 When compared against biothesiometer, vibratip performed significantly well with a positive predictive value of 90.3% and specificity of 84.2%.  On combining bedside tests, the best combination strategy was seen with vibratip and 10 g monofilament, which improved the sensitivity to 62.5%.  All the patients with an at-risk foot may not be identified with vibratip alone. 
Vibratip
Testing using 10 g Monofilament, Vibratip and biothesiometer were also done.  Considering the biothesiometer as the reference standard, three bedside tests (Vibratip, 10 g monofilament and 128 Hz tuning fork) were compared against it singly and in combinations.


 When compared against biothesiometer, vibratip performed significantly well with a positive predictive value of 90.3% and specificity of 84.2%. 
biothesiometer
Testing using 10 g Monofilament, Vibratip and biothesiometer were also done.  Considering the biothesiometer as the reference standard, three bedside tests (Vibratip, 10 g monofilament and 128 Hz tuning fork) were compared against it singly and in combinations.


 On combining bedside tests, the best combination strategy was seen with vibratip and 10 g monofilament, which improved the sensitivity to 62.5%. 
10 g Monofilament
Considering the biothesiometer as the reference standard, three bedside tests (Vibratip, 10 g monofilament and 128 Hz tuning fork) were compared against it singly and in combinations.



128 Hz tuning fork