Loewenbrück Kai F, Dittrich Markus, Böhm Josef, Klingelhöfer Jürgen, Baum Petra, Schäfer Jochen, Koch Rainer, Storch Alexander
Division of Neurodegenerative Diseases, Department of Neurology, Technische Universität Dresden, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Department of Neurology, Elblandkliniken, 01662, Meissen, Germany.
J Neurol. 2016 Nov;263(11):2196-2206. doi: 10.1007/s00415-016-8242-9. Epub 2016 Aug 8.
The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of nerve ultrasound (US) and nerve conduction studies (NCS) for acquired non-entrapment peripheral neuropathies (PNP) and hereditary motor and sensory neuropathies (HMSN) in a routine clinical setting. The methods are based on a single-center, prospective, examiner-blinded cross-sectional study on three subject groups of healthy controls, PNP (both enrolled by a consecutive recruitment strategy), and HMSN patients (convenience sample). A clinical reference standard based on the neuropathy impairment (NIS) and neuropathy symptoms scores (NSS) was used for PNP as the external validation criterion. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed by receiver-operating curve (ROC) analyses of single-nerve measurements and logit models. Of a total of 676 consecutively screened subjects, 107 (15.8 %) were recruited, of which 36 (33.6 %) had a PNP. HMSN group consisted of 53 subjects (30 subjects (56.6 %) with genetic confirmation). AUCs of best diagnostic logit models to distinguish between controls and PNP patients were 0.86 for US and 0.97 for NCS corresponding to an equivalent specificity [US 93 % (95 % CI: 83-98 %), NCS 89 % (95 % CI: 78-95 %)], but inferior sensitivity of US [US 56 % (95 % CI: 35-74 %), NCS 97 % (95 % CI: 84-100 %)]. For differentiation between PNP and HMSN, both methods had equivalent AUCs of 0.95 corresponding to similar sensitivities/specificities. Simpler diagnostic models based on measurement protocols feasible for clinical routine revealed similar diagnostic accuracies. US has an inferior sensitivity than NCS for acquired PNP, but comparable specificity. For identification of HMSN in a PNP population, US and NCS show comparable performance.
本研究的目的是在常规临床环境中比较神经超声(US)和神经传导研究(NCS)对获得性非卡压性周围神经病(PNP)和遗传性运动和感觉神经病(HMSN)的诊断准确性。方法基于一项单中心、前瞻性、检查者盲法横断面研究,该研究涉及健康对照、PNP(均采用连续招募策略纳入)和HMSN患者(便利样本)三个受试者组。基于神经病变损害(NIS)和神经病变症状评分(NSS)的临床参考标准被用作PNP的外部验证标准。通过对单神经测量的受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)分析和logit模型评估诊断准确性。在总共676名连续筛查的受试者中,招募了107名(15.8%),其中36名(33.6%)患有PNP。HMSN组由53名受试者组成(30名受试者(56.6%)有基因确认)。区分对照和PNP患者的最佳诊断logit模型的曲线下面积(AUC),US为0.86,NCS为0.97,对应相当的特异性[US 93%(95%CI:83 - 98%),NCS 89%(95%CI:78 - 95%)],但US的敏感性较低[US 56%(95%CI:35 - 74%),NCS 97%(95%CI:84 - 100%)]。对于区分PNP和HMSN而言,两种方法的AUC均为0.95,对应相似的敏感性/特异性。基于适用于临床常规的测量方案的更简单诊断模型显示出相似的诊断准确性。对于获得性PNP,US的敏感性低于NCS,但特异性相当。对于在PNP人群中识别HMSN,US和NCS表现相当。