From Bench to Bedside: Evaluating the Accuracy of Clinical Sensory Testing in Detecting Somatosensory Disorders. A Systematic Review.
Federico Rossi, Ilaria Prato, Marco Mondelli et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review assessed the diagnostic accuracy of clinical sensory tests (CSTs) for somatosensory disorders across populations and conditions, comparing test results with reference standards. Twelve studies involving 4911 participants were synthesised narratively by sensory modality. Specificity was generally moderate to high for pressure, mechanical, and vibration testing, while sensitivity varied substantially. The Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament Test had sensitivity of 77%-90.7% and specificity of 63.8%-100%; composite tools often exceeded 87% for both measures. Most studies had high or unclear risk of bias in at least one QUADAS-2 domain.
Key findings
- The Semmes-Weinstein Monofilament Test showed 77%-90.7% sensitivity and 63.8%-100% specificity.
- Tuning fork vibration tests ranged from 30% to 96% sensitivity and 45%-99% specificity.
- Thermal tests had the widest reported accuracy ranges: sensitivity = 0.0%-97.1%; specificity = 2.0%-94.4%.
- Composite tools often had sensitivity and specificity exceeding 87%, although most studies had high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain.
Why it matters
CSTs offer a practical way to profile somatosensory function across varied clinical conditions. However, the wide variation in sensitivity and specificity means results may depend on the test and sensory modality, and a normal or abnormal result may not reliably establish or exclude a disorder. The review highlights the importance of interpreting tests in context rather than treating them as definitive diagnostic measures.
What to keep in mind
Accuracy estimates varied widely across tests and modalities, and most included studies had high or unclear risk of bias in at least one QUADAS-2 domain. The review also reports methodological heterogeneity.