Literature DB >> 7629529

Diagnostic value of paraclinical tests in multiple sclerosis: relative sensitivities and specificities for reclassification according to the Poser committee criteria.

S Beer1, K M Rösler, C W Hess.   

Abstract

The yield of paraclinical tests was evaluated in a prospective study of 189 consecutive patients referred for suspected multiple sclerosis (142 patients with multiple sclerosis, 47 non-multiple sclerosis patients on discharge). Patients were first classified according to the Poser criteria by the clinical findings. Subsequently, the results of paraclinical tests (cranial MRI, visually evoked potentials (VEPs), somatosensory evoked potentials by tibial nerve stimulation (SSEPs), motor evoked potentials (MEPs), and analysis of CSF for oligoclonal banding and IgG-index (CSF)) were taken into account. The percentage of reclassified patients (reclassification sensitivity, RS) was always lower than the percentage of abnormal results (diagnostic sensitivity, DS), and the divergence of RS v DS differed between the tests (60% v 84% in MRI, 31% v 77% in CSF, 29% v 37% in VEPs, 20% v 68% in MEPs, and 12% v 46% in SSEPs respectively). False reclassifications of non-multiple sclerosis patients to multiple sclerosis would have occurred with all tests (MRI: six of 47 patients, (reclassification specificity 88%); CSF: one (98%); VEPs: two (96%); MEPs: two (96%); SSEPs: four (91%); P < 0.05). Although MRI had superior diagnostic capacity, 57 of the 142 patients with multiple sclerosis were not reclassified by the MRI result, 12 of whom were reclassified by CSF and 18 by one of the evoked potential (EP) studies. Of the 98 patients not reclassified by CSF, 53 were reclassified by MRI and 39 by EPs. The results suggest that for the evaluation of paraclinical tests in suspected multiple sclerosis, comparison of diagnostic sensitivities is inappropriate. In general, a cranial MRI contributes most to the diagnosis; however, due to its comparatively low specificity and its considerable number of negative results, EP or CSF studies are often useful to establish the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7629529      PMCID: PMC485990          DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.59.2.152

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry        ISSN: 0022-3050            Impact factor:   10.154


  31 in total

1.  PROBLEMS OF EXPERIMENTAL TRIALS OF THERAPY IN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS: REPORT BY THE PANEL ON THE EVALUATION OF EXPERIMENTAL TRIALS OF THERAPY IN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS.

Authors:  G A SCHUMACHER; G BEEBE; R F KIBLER; L T KURLAND; J F KURTZKE; F MCDOWELL; B NAGLER; W A SIBLEY; W W TOURTELLOTTE; T L WILLMON
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  1965-03-31       Impact factor: 5.691

2.  Principles of albumin and IgG analyses in neurological disorders. I. Establishment of reference values.

Authors:  G Tibbling; H Link; S Ohman
Journal:  Scand J Clin Lab Invest       Date:  1977-09       Impact factor: 1.713

3.  Evaluation of various brain structures in multiple sclerosis with multimodality evoked potentials, blink reflex and nystagmography.

Authors:  W Tackmann; H Strenge; R Barth; A Sojka-Raytscheff
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  1980       Impact factor: 4.849

4.  Assessment of MRI criteria for a diagnosis of MS.

Authors:  H Offenbacher; F Fazekas; R Schmidt; W Freidl; E Flooh; F Payer; H Lechner
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 9.910

5.  Detection of oligoclonal bands in unconcentrated CSF: isoelectric focusing and silver staining.

Authors:  P D Mehta; B A Patrick
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  1983-10       Impact factor: 9.910

6.  Value of multiple sclerosis diagnostic criteria. 70 autopsy-confirmed cases.

Authors:  G Izquierdo; J J Hauw; O Lyon-Caen; R Marteau; R Escourolle; A Buge; P Castaigne; F Lhermitte
Journal:  Arch Neurol       Date:  1985-09

7.  Evoked potential changes in clinically definite multiple sclerosis: a two year follow up study.

Authors:  J C Walsh; R Garrick; J Cameron; J G McLeod
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1982-06       Impact factor: 10.154

Review 8.  Pattern shift visual, brainstem auditory, and short-latency somatosensory evoked potentials in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  K H Chiappa
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  1980-07       Impact factor: 9.910

9.  A randomized trial of test result sequencing in patients with suspected multiple sclerosis. Rochester-Toronto MRI Study Group.

Authors:  P O'Connor; C Tansey; W Kucharczyk; A S Detsky
Journal:  Arch Neurol       Date:  1994-01

10.  Sensitivities and predictive values of paraclinical tests for diagnosing multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  G Filippini; G C Comi; V Cosi; L Bevilacqua; M Ferrarini; V Martinelli; R Bergamaschi; M Filippi; A Citterio; L D'Incerti
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 4.849

View more
  9 in total

1.  Motor cortical reorganization is present after a single attack of multiple sclerosis devoid of cortico-spinal dysfunction.

Authors:  Audrey Rico; Wafaa Zaaraoui; Jerome Franques; Shahram Attarian; Françoise Reuter; Irina Malikova; Sylviane Confort-Gouny; Elisabeth Soulier; Jean Pouget; Patrick J Cozzone; Jean Pelletier; Jean-Philippe Ranjeva; Bertrand Audoin
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2010-12-17       Impact factor: 2.310

2.  Multiple measures of corticospinal excitability are associated with clinical features of multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  J L Neva; B Lakhani; K E Brown; K P Wadden; C S Mang; N H M Ledwell; M R Borich; I M Vavasour; C Laule; A L Traboulsee; A L MacKay; L A Boyd
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Diagnostic value of visual evoked potentials for clinical diagnosis of multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Niphon Chirapapaisan; Sawarin Laotaweerungsawat; Wanicha Chuenkongkaew; Patthanee Samsen; Ngamkae Ruangvaravate; Atiporn Thuangtong; Nacha Chanvarapha
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 2.379

Review 4.  Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: systematic review.

Authors:  Penny Whiting; Roger Harbord; Caroline Main; Jonathan J Deeks; Graziella Filippini; Matthias Egger; Jonathan A C Sterne
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-03-24

5.  Clinical correlations of motor and somatosensory evoked potentials in neuromyelitis optica.

Authors:  Wei-Chia Tsao; Rong-Kuo Lyu; Long-Sun Ro; Ming-Fen Lao; Chiung-Mei Chen; Yih-Ru Wu; Chin-Chang Huang; Hong-Shiu Chang; Hung-Chao Kuo; Chun-Che Chu; Kuo-Hsuan Chang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Multimodal evoked potentials for functional quantification and prognosis in multiple sclerosis.

Authors:  Xavier Giffroy; Nathalie Maes; Adelin Albert; Pierre Maquet; Jean-Michel Crielaard; Dominique Dive
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 2.474

Review 7.  A new role for evoked potentials in MS? Repurposing evoked potentials as biomarkers for clinical trials in MS.

Authors:  Martin Hardmeier; Letizia Leocani; Peter Fuhr
Journal:  Mult Scler       Date:  2017-05-08       Impact factor: 6.312

Review 8.  The electrophysiological assessment of visual function in Multiple Sclerosis.

Authors:  Joshua L Barton; Justin Y Garber; Alexander Klistorner; Michael H Barnett
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol Pract       Date:  2019-05-08

9.  Low Contrast Visual Evoked Potentials for Early Detection of Optic Neuritis.

Authors:  Soo-Hyun Park; Choul-Yong Park; Young Joo Shin; Kyoung Sook Jeong; Nam-Hee Kim
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-04-29       Impact factor: 4.003

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.