Risk Assessment
Watch the NC-stat DPNCheck Overview

product img 1

NC-stat DPNCheck

NC-stat DPNCheck can improve the effectiveness of neuropathy detection programs and is ideal for:

  • Health Risk Assessment Service Providers for In-home Use
  • Clinic Based Health Risk Assessments

Why Use Nerve Conduction to Detect Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy (DPN)?

The expected rate of neuropathy approaches 50%1 but is often missed with traditional detection methods such as monofilament testing2

  • Traditional detection tools (monofilament or tuning fork) detect only late stage neuropathy and have low sensitivity
  • Due to the subjective nature of these tests they are usually performed by physicians not staff
  • Compliance rates for the performance of these tests are typically poor
  • Sural nerve conduction detects DPN with high diagnostic sensitivity at all stages of severity
product img 1
product img 1

Benefits of Improved DPN Detection in a Managed Care Organization:

  • Accurately risk assess diabetes patients
  • Early diagnosis of DPN presents opportunities to intervene and reduce costs
  • Identify those patients with neuropathy that are at highest risk for neuropathy related complications such as foot ulcers, neuropathic pain, and falls – DPN related ulcers and amputations have 5 year mortality rates comparable to colon cancer and worse than other common cancers, click here to view mortality data
  • Efficient and cost effective testing

DPNCheck Clinical Validation

The NC-stat DPNCheck has been clinically validated in numerous peer-reviewed journal publications and clinical conference presentations. Click here to view the complete list.

product img 1


1. Dyck PJ, Kratz KM, Karnes JL, et al. The prevalence by staged severity of various types of diabetic neuropathy, retinopathy, and nephropathy in a population-based cohort:The Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study. Neurology. Apr 1993;43(4):817-824.
2. Perkins, et al. Simple Screening tests for Peripheral Neuropathy in the Diabetes Clinic. Diabetes Care. 24: 250-256, 2001.