The sensitivity and specificity of the neurological examination in polyneuropathy patients with clinical and electrophysiological correlations

Alon Abraham, Majed Alabdali, Abdulla Alsulaiman, Hana Albulaihe, Ari Breiner, Hans D Katzberg, Danah Aljaafari, Leif E Lovblom, Vera Bril, Alon Abraham, Majed Alabdali, Abdulla Alsulaiman, Hana Albulaihe, Ari Breiner, Hans D Katzberg, Danah Aljaafari, Leif E Lovblom, Vera Bril

Abstract

Introduction: Polyneuropathy is one of the most prevalent neurologic disorders. Although several studies explored the role of the neurological examination in polyneuropathy, they were mostly restricted to specific subgroups of patients and have not correlated examination findings with symptoms and electrophysiological results.

Objectives: To explore the sensitivity and specificity of different neurological examination components in patients with diverse etiologies for polyneuropathy, find the most sensitive combination of examination components for polyneuropathy detection, and correlate examination findings with symptoms and electrophysiological results.

Methods: Patients with polyneuropathy attending the neuromuscular clinic from 01/2013 to 09/2015 were evaluated. Inclusion criteria included symptomatic polyneuropathy, which was confirmed by electrophysiological studies. 47 subjects with no symptoms or electrophysiological findings suggestive for polyneuropathy, served as controls.

Results: The total cohort included 312 polyneuropathy patients, with a mean age of 60±14 years. Abnormal examination was found in 95%, most commonly sensory findings (86%). The most common abnormal examination components were impaired ankle reflexes (74%), vibration (73%), and pinprick (72%) sensation. Combining ankle reflex examination with vibration or pinprick perception had the highest sensitivity, of 88%. The specificities of individual examination component were generally high, excluding ankle reflexes (62%), and vibration perception (77%). Abnormal examination findings were correlated with symptomatic weakness and worse electrophysiological parameters.

Conclusion: The neurological examination is a valid, sensitive and specific tool for diagnosing polyneuropathy, and findings correlate with polyneuropathy severity. Ankle reflex examination combined with either vibration or pinprick sensory testing is the most sensitive combination for diagnosing polyneuropathy, and should be considered minimal essential components of the physical examination in patients with suspected polyneuropathy.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

    1. Campbell WW, DeJong RN. DeJong's the Neurologic Examination. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
    1. Martyn CN, Hughes RA. Epidemiology of peripheral neuropathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr. 1997;62: 310–318.
    1. England JD, Gronseth GS, Franklin G, Miller RG, Asbury AK, Carter GT, et al. Distal symmetric polyneuropathy: a definition for clinical research: report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2005: 199–207.
    1. Devigili G, Tugnoli V, Penza P, Camozzi F, Lombardi R, Melli G, et al. The diagnostic criteria for small fibre neuropathy: from symptoms to neuropathology. Brain. 2008;131: 1912–1925. d 10.1093/brain/awn093
    1. Johnston SC, Hauser SL. The beautiful and ethereal neurological exam: An appeal for research. Ann Neurol. 2011;70: A9–A10.
    1. Dyck PJ, Overland CJ, Low PA, Litchy WJ, Davies JL, Dyck PJB, et al. Signs and symptoms versus nerve conduction studies to diagnose diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy: Cl vs. NPhys trial. Muscle Nerve. 2010;42: 157–164. 10.1002/mus.21661
    1. Dyck PJ, Overland CJ, Low PA, Litchy WJ, Davies JL, Dyck PJB, et al. "Unequivocally Abnormal" vs “Usual” Signs and Symptoms for Proficient Diagnosis of Diabetic Polyneuropathy: Cl vs N Phys Trial. Arch Neurol. American Medical Association; 2012;69: 1609–1614. 10.1001/archneurol.2012.1481
    1. Lauria G, Hsieh ST, Johansson O, Kennedy WR, Léger JM, Mellgren SI, et al. European Federation of Neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society Guideline on the use of skin biopsy in the diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy. Report of a joint task force of the European Federation of Neurological Societies and the Peripheral Nerve Society. European journal of neurology: the official journal of the European Federation of Neurological Societies. 2010: 903–12– e44–9.
    1. Lacomis D. Small-fiber neuropathy. Muscle Nerve. 2002;26: 173–188. 10.1002/mus.10181
    1. Preston DC, Shapiro BE. Electromyography and Neuromuscular Disorders. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2012.
    1. Bril V, Perkins BA. Validation of the Toronto Clinical Scoring System for diabetic polyneuropathy. Diabetes Care. 2002;25: 2048–2052.
    1. Bolton CF, Benstead TJ, Grand'Maison F, Tardif GS, Weston LE. Minimum standards for electromyography in Canada: a statement of the Canadian Society of Clinical Neurophysiologists. The Canadian journal of neurological sciences. Le journal canadien des sciences neurologiques. 2000: 288–291.
    1. American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine. Guidelines in electrodiagnostic medicine. Recommended policy for electrodiagnostic medicine, Muscle Nerve. Suppl. 8 (1999) S91–S105.
    1. Russell J, Amato A. Neuromuscular Disorders, 2nd Edition McGraw-Hill Education / Medical; 2015.
    1. Abraham A, Alabdali M, Alsulaiman A, Breiner A, Barnett C, Katzberg HD, et al. Laser Doppler flare imaging and quantitative thermal thresholds testing performance in small and mixed fiber neuropathies. PLoS One. 2016. November 8;11(11):e0165731 10.1371/journal.pone.0165731
    1. Visser NA, Notermans NC, Linssen RSN, van den Berg LH, Vrancken AFJE. Incidence of polyneuropathy in Utrecht, the Netherlands. Neurology. 2015;84: 259–264. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001160
    1. Chronic symmetric symptomatic polyneuropathy in the elderly: a field screening investigation in two Italian regions. I. Prevalence and general characteristics of the sample. Italian General Practitioner Study Group (IGPSG). Neurology. 1995;45: 1832–1836.
    1. George J, Twomey JA. Causes of polyneuropathy in the elderly. Age Ageing. 1986;15: 247–249.
    1. Elevated Vibration Perception Thresholds in CIDP Patients Indicate More Severe Neuropathy and Lower Treatment Response Rates. PLoS One. 2015. 6;10(11):e0139689 10.1371/journal.pone.0139689
    1. Vrethem M, Boivie J, Arnqvist H, Holmgren H, Lindström T. Painful polyneuropathy in patients with and without diabetes: clinical, neurophysiologic, and quantitative sensory characteristics. Clin J Pain. 2002;18: 122–127.
    1. Callaghan BC, Kerber KA, Lisabeth LL, Morgenstern LB, Longoria R, Rodgers A, et al. Role of neurologists and diagnostic tests on the management of distal symmetric polyneuropathy. JAMA Neurol. American Medical Association; 2014;71: 1143–1149. 10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.1279
    1. Perkins BA1, Olaleye D, Zinman B, Bril V. Simple screening tests for peripheral neuropathy in the diabetes clinic. Diabetes Care. 2001. February;24(2):250–6.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel