What is the most critical test to perform on a diabetic patient with a plantar foot ulcer and nearly diminished sensation?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: December 25, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

The Monofilament Test is the Most Critical Diagnostic Test

The 10-g monofilament test is the single most critical test to perform in this patient, as it objectively confirms loss of protective sensation (LOPS)—the underlying diagnosis that explains the clinical presentation and fundamentally determines management. 1

Why the Monofilament Test Takes Priority

The clinical scenario describes a patient with "nearly diminished sensation"—this is a subjective observation that requires objective confirmation through standardized testing. The monofilament test serves as the definitive diagnostic tool because:

  • LOPS is present in 78% of diabetic patients who develop foot ulcers, making it the single most common causative factor for diabetic foot ulceration 1
  • The American Diabetes Association explicitly states that the neurological exam is designed to identify LOPS rather than early neuropathy, positioning the monofilament test as the primary diagnostic tool for this exact clinical scenario 2, 1
  • The monofilament test is one of the two most sensitive tests for identifying feet at risk for ulceration and serves as the foundation for risk stratification and management planning 1
  • Absent monofilament sensation confirms LOPS, while at least two normal neurological tests (with no abnormal test) rules it out 2, 3

Proper Testing Technique

The 10-g monofilament should ideally be performed with at least one additional neurological assessment (pinprick, temperature perception with a 128-Hz tuning fork, or ankle reflexes) to confirm the diagnosis 2, 3, 4. This combined approach increases diagnostic accuracy and provides comprehensive neurological assessment.

Why Other Options Are Not the Answer

ABI Testing (Option A)

  • ABI is indicated only when patients have symptoms of claudication or decreased/absent pedal pulses 2
  • This patient has intact peripheral pulses, making PAD evaluation secondary 3
  • ABI evaluates vascular disease, not the neuropathic cause of this plantar ulcer 1

CT Scan (Option C)

  • No guideline or evidence supports CT scanning as a diagnostic test for neuropathic foot ulcers in this clinical context
  • CT would be considered for suspected osteomyelitis or Charcot arthropathy, neither of which is suggested by this presentation

Pressure Point Assessment (Option D)

  • Pressure assessment becomes relevant AFTER confirming LOPS through monofilament testing, as part of the treatment strategy involving therapeutic footwear and offloading 1
  • While elevated barefoot peak plantar pressures >4.1 kg/cm² can identify sites at risk for ulceration 5, this assessment follows—not precedes—the diagnosis of LOPS
  • Pressure assessment is a management tool, not a diagnostic test for the underlying neuropathy

Critical Clinical Pitfall

Do not assume neuropathy based solely on history or clinical impression—objective confirmation with monofilament testing is essential for proper risk stratification and management planning 1. The inability to feel a 5.07 monofilament represents a sensory threshold more than 50 times greater than normal, meaning roughly 98% of sensory ability has been lost 6. This objective measurement transforms clinical management by:

  • Triggering referral to foot care specialists 2
  • Mandating specialized therapeutic footwear 2, 1
  • Requiring more frequent monitoring (every 1-3 months for high-risk patients) 3
  • Establishing the need for patient education on daily foot inspection 4

The monofilament test has proven prognostic value, with relative risk for future foot ulceration ranging from 2.5 to 7.9 in patients with positive results 7, making it not just diagnostic but also prognostically essential for preventing recurrence.

References

Guideline

Diagnosing Loss of Protective Sensation in Diabetic Patients

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

Guideline

Diabetic Foot Screening and Risk Stratification

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Guideline

Neurovascular Examination of the Feet

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Research

Sensory thresholds of normal human feet.

Foot & ankle international, 2000

Related Questions

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.