大量神经病变患者的定量感觉测试

A. Lizarraga, Salman F Bhai, G. Wolfe, L. Herbelin, S. Nations, Morgan McCreary, D. Saperstein, R. Barohn
{"title":"大量神经病变患者的定量感觉测试","authors":"A. Lizarraga, Salman F Bhai, G. Wolfe, L. Herbelin, S. Nations, Morgan McCreary, D. Saperstein, R. Barohn","doi":"10.17161/rrnmf.v4i2.19513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: \nQuantitative sensory testing (QST) is a subjective but reliable and quantifiable method to detect patient thresholds to different sensory stimuli. QST is used to measure small- and large-fiber nerve function and can be used in conjunction with other diagnostic modalities in the evaluation of peripheral neuropathy (PN). The utility of QST to distinguish among different types of PN, however, has not been explored. The objective of the study was to evaluate if different patterns of QST abnormalities could distinguish between PN types. \nMethods: \nThis single-center retrospective cohort study evaluated the frequency of QST abnormalities to vibratory, cold and heat detection thresholds in a large population of PN cases evaluated at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center peripheral neuropathy clinic between 1995-2000. PN was categorized by etiology. \nResults: \nA total of 559 QST studies were performed in this study. The average age of patients (n=557) was 60 years with a male-to-female ratio of 1:1. The most common diagnosis was cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy (CSPN, n=294), followed by Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease (n=84)). Meta-regression of vibration and cold indicate that the expected proportion of abnormal responses is less for the vibration test (p = 0.0002), relative to the cold test. However, no differences were observed between diagnoses. \nConclusions: \nThough abnormal QST thresholds were seen in most patients with PN, patterns of QST abnormalities do not distinguish between different types of PN. The routine clinical utility of QST is likely limited.","PeriodicalId":309700,"journal":{"name":"RRNMF Neuromuscular Journal","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantitative sensory testing in a large cohort of neuropathy patients\",\"authors\":\"A. Lizarraga, Salman F Bhai, G. Wolfe, L. Herbelin, S. Nations, Morgan McCreary, D. Saperstein, R. Barohn\",\"doi\":\"10.17161/rrnmf.v4i2.19513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: \\nQuantitative sensory testing (QST) is a subjective but reliable and quantifiable method to detect patient thresholds to different sensory stimuli. QST is used to measure small- and large-fiber nerve function and can be used in conjunction with other diagnostic modalities in the evaluation of peripheral neuropathy (PN). The utility of QST to distinguish among different types of PN, however, has not been explored. The objective of the study was to evaluate if different patterns of QST abnormalities could distinguish between PN types. \\nMethods: \\nThis single-center retrospective cohort study evaluated the frequency of QST abnormalities to vibratory, cold and heat detection thresholds in a large population of PN cases evaluated at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center peripheral neuropathy clinic between 1995-2000. PN was categorized by etiology. \\nResults: \\nA total of 559 QST studies were performed in this study. The average age of patients (n=557) was 60 years with a male-to-female ratio of 1:1. The most common diagnosis was cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy (CSPN, n=294), followed by Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease (n=84)). Meta-regression of vibration and cold indicate that the expected proportion of abnormal responses is less for the vibration test (p = 0.0002), relative to the cold test. However, no differences were observed between diagnoses. \\nConclusions: \\nThough abnormal QST thresholds were seen in most patients with PN, patterns of QST abnormalities do not distinguish between different types of PN. The routine clinical utility of QST is likely limited.\",\"PeriodicalId\":309700,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"RRNMF Neuromuscular Journal\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"RRNMF Neuromuscular Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17161/rrnmf.v4i2.19513\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RRNMF Neuromuscular Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17161/rrnmf.v4i2.19513","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:定量感觉测试(QST)是一种主观但可靠且可量化的方法,用于检测患者对不同感觉刺激的阈值。QST用于测量小纤维和大纤维神经功能,并可与周围神经病变(PN)的其他诊断方式结合使用。然而,QST区分不同类型PN的效用尚未得到探讨。该研究的目的是评估不同类型的QST异常是否可以区分PN类型。方法:这项单中心回顾性队列研究评估了1995-2000年间在德克萨斯大学西南医学中心周围神经病变诊所评估的大量PN病例中,QST异常到振动、冷和热检测阈值的频率。PN按病因分类。结果:本研究共进行了559项QST研究。患者平均年龄(n=557)为60岁,男女比例为1:1。最常见的诊断是隐源性感觉多神经病变(CSPN, n=294),其次是charcott - marie - tooth病(n=84)。振动和冷态的元回归表明,相对于冷态试验,振动试验的预期异常响应比例更小(p = 0.0002)。然而,在诊断之间没有观察到差异。结论:虽然大多数PN患者的QST阈值异常,但QST异常模式并不能区分不同类型的PN。QST的常规临床应用可能是有限的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Quantitative sensory testing in a large cohort of neuropathy patients
Background: Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a subjective but reliable and quantifiable method to detect patient thresholds to different sensory stimuli. QST is used to measure small- and large-fiber nerve function and can be used in conjunction with other diagnostic modalities in the evaluation of peripheral neuropathy (PN). The utility of QST to distinguish among different types of PN, however, has not been explored. The objective of the study was to evaluate if different patterns of QST abnormalities could distinguish between PN types. Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study evaluated the frequency of QST abnormalities to vibratory, cold and heat detection thresholds in a large population of PN cases evaluated at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center peripheral neuropathy clinic between 1995-2000. PN was categorized by etiology. Results: A total of 559 QST studies were performed in this study. The average age of patients (n=557) was 60 years with a male-to-female ratio of 1:1. The most common diagnosis was cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy (CSPN, n=294), followed by Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease (n=84)). Meta-regression of vibration and cold indicate that the expected proportion of abnormal responses is less for the vibration test (p = 0.0002), relative to the cold test. However, no differences were observed between diagnoses. Conclusions: Though abnormal QST thresholds were seen in most patients with PN, patterns of QST abnormalities do not distinguish between different types of PN. The routine clinical utility of QST is likely limited.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Survival and multidisciplinary amyotrophic lateral sclerosis clinic care at a United States Veterans Affairs medical center Recurrent Guillian Barre’ Syndrome vs acute onset CIDP - study of 2 cases. Rhabdomyolysis and Exercise Intolerance in a 45-Year-Old Man A Worsening Problem in ALS: Insurance Barriers Between Drug Approvals and Patient Access Safety and tolerability of phenylbutyrate in inclusion body myositis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1