表皮内神经纤维密度与共聚焦角膜显微镜在神经病变方面的比较。

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology Pub Date : 2024-10-12 DOI:10.1002/acn3.52218
Evan L Reynolds, Fallon Koenig, Maya Watanabe, Alyssa Kwiatek, Melissa A Elafros, Amro Stino, Don Henderson, David N Herrmann, Eva L Feldman, Brian C Callaghan
{"title":"表皮内神经纤维密度与共聚焦角膜显微镜在神经病变方面的比较。","authors":"Evan L Reynolds, Fallon Koenig, Maya Watanabe, Alyssa Kwiatek, Melissa A Elafros, Amro Stino, Don Henderson, David N Herrmann, Eva L Feldman, Brian C Callaghan","doi":"10.1002/acn3.52218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Compare the diagnostic characteristics of intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD) and confocal corneal microscopy (CCM) for distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) and small fiber neuropathy (SFN).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants with obesity were recruited from bariatric surgery clinics and testing was performed prior to surgery. DSP and SFN were determined using the Toronto consensus definitions of probable neuropathy. IENFD was assessed from 3 mm punch biopsies of the distal leg and proximal thigh. CCM was performed on both eyes with manual and automated counting. The Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument questionnaire (MNSIq) was also completed. Diagnostic capability was determined using areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) from logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We enrolled 140 participants (mean [standard deviation [SD]] age: 50.3 years [7.1], 77.1% female, BMI: 44.4 kg/m<sup>2</sup> [6.7]). In this population, 22.9% had DSP and 14.3% had SFN. Distal leg IENFD had the largest AUC (95% confidence interval) for DSP (0.78, 0.68-0.89) and SFN (0.85, 0.75-0.96). Proximal thigh IENFD (DSP: AUC: 0.59, 0.48-0.69, SFN: AUC: 0.59, 0.46-0.73) and CCM metrics (DSP: AUC range: 0.55-0.60, SFN: AUC range: 0.45-0.62) had poorer diagnostic capability than distal leg IENFD for DSP/SFN (P < 0.05). MNSIq had similar diagnostic capability to distal leg IENFD for both DSP/SFN (DSP: AUC: 0.76, 0.68-0.85, SFN: AUC: 0.81, 0.73-0.88). More participants (52%) preferred skin biopsies to CCM.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Distal leg IENFD was the best quantitative measure of DSP/SFN. CCM had poor diagnostic characteristics and fewer patients preferred this test to IENFD. The MNSIq had similar diagnostic characteristics to distal leg IENFD, indicating its value as a diagnostic tool in the clinical setting.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03617185.</p>","PeriodicalId":126,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of intraepidermal nerve fiber density and confocal corneal microscopy for neuropathy.\",\"authors\":\"Evan L Reynolds, Fallon Koenig, Maya Watanabe, Alyssa Kwiatek, Melissa A Elafros, Amro Stino, Don Henderson, David N Herrmann, Eva L Feldman, Brian C Callaghan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acn3.52218\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Compare the diagnostic characteristics of intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD) and confocal corneal microscopy (CCM) for distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) and small fiber neuropathy (SFN).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants with obesity were recruited from bariatric surgery clinics and testing was performed prior to surgery. DSP and SFN were determined using the Toronto consensus definitions of probable neuropathy. IENFD was assessed from 3 mm punch biopsies of the distal leg and proximal thigh. CCM was performed on both eyes with manual and automated counting. The Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument questionnaire (MNSIq) was also completed. Diagnostic capability was determined using areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) from logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We enrolled 140 participants (mean [standard deviation [SD]] age: 50.3 years [7.1], 77.1% female, BMI: 44.4 kg/m<sup>2</sup> [6.7]). In this population, 22.9% had DSP and 14.3% had SFN. Distal leg IENFD had the largest AUC (95% confidence interval) for DSP (0.78, 0.68-0.89) and SFN (0.85, 0.75-0.96). Proximal thigh IENFD (DSP: AUC: 0.59, 0.48-0.69, SFN: AUC: 0.59, 0.46-0.73) and CCM metrics (DSP: AUC range: 0.55-0.60, SFN: AUC range: 0.45-0.62) had poorer diagnostic capability than distal leg IENFD for DSP/SFN (P < 0.05). MNSIq had similar diagnostic capability to distal leg IENFD for both DSP/SFN (DSP: AUC: 0.76, 0.68-0.85, SFN: AUC: 0.81, 0.73-0.88). More participants (52%) preferred skin biopsies to CCM.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Distal leg IENFD was the best quantitative measure of DSP/SFN. CCM had poor diagnostic characteristics and fewer patients preferred this test to IENFD. The MNSIq had similar diagnostic characteristics to distal leg IENFD, indicating its value as a diagnostic tool in the clinical setting.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03617185.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":126,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.52218\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.52218","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较表皮内神经纤维密度(IENFD)和共聚焦角膜显微镜(CCM)对远端对称性多发性神经病(DSP)和小纤维神经病(SFN)的诊断特征:从减肥手术诊所招募肥胖症患者,在手术前进行测试。DSP和SFN是根据多伦多共识的可能神经病变定义确定的。根据腿远端和大腿近端 3 毫米冲孔活检组织对 IENFD 进行评估。对双眼进行手动和自动计数。还填写了密歇根神经病变筛查工具问卷(MNSIq)。使用逻辑回归的接收者操作特征曲线下面积(AUC)确定诊断能力:我们共招募了 140 名参与者(平均[标准差[SD]]年龄:50.3 岁[7.1],77.1% 为女性,体重指数:44.4 kg/m2 [6.7])。其中 22.9% 患有 DSP,14.3% 患有 SFN。腿远端 IENFD 对 DSP(0.78,0.68-0.89)和 SFN(0.85,0.75-0.96)的 AUC(95% 置信区间)最大。就 DSP/SFN 而言,大腿近端 IENFD(DSP:AUC:0.59,0.48-0.69;SFN:AUC:0.59,0.46-0.73)和 CCM 指标(DSP:AUC 范围:0.55-0.60;SFN:AUC 范围:0.45-0.62)的诊断能力比腿部远端 IENFD 差(P 解释:腿远端 IENFD 是 DSP/SFN 的最佳定量测量指标。CCM 的诊断特性较差,较少患者选择该检测而非 IENFD。MNSIq的诊断特征与腿部远端IENFD相似,表明其在临床环境中作为诊断工具的价值。临床试验注册:clinicaltrials.gov:临床试验注册:clinicaltrials.gov:NCT03617185。
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
Comparison of intraepidermal nerve fiber density and confocal corneal microscopy for neuropathy.

Objective: Compare the diagnostic characteristics of intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD) and confocal corneal microscopy (CCM) for distal symmetric polyneuropathy (DSP) and small fiber neuropathy (SFN).

Methods: Participants with obesity were recruited from bariatric surgery clinics and testing was performed prior to surgery. DSP and SFN were determined using the Toronto consensus definitions of probable neuropathy. IENFD was assessed from 3 mm punch biopsies of the distal leg and proximal thigh. CCM was performed on both eyes with manual and automated counting. The Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument questionnaire (MNSIq) was also completed. Diagnostic capability was determined using areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) from logistic regression.

Results: We enrolled 140 participants (mean [standard deviation [SD]] age: 50.3 years [7.1], 77.1% female, BMI: 44.4 kg/m2 [6.7]). In this population, 22.9% had DSP and 14.3% had SFN. Distal leg IENFD had the largest AUC (95% confidence interval) for DSP (0.78, 0.68-0.89) and SFN (0.85, 0.75-0.96). Proximal thigh IENFD (DSP: AUC: 0.59, 0.48-0.69, SFN: AUC: 0.59, 0.46-0.73) and CCM metrics (DSP: AUC range: 0.55-0.60, SFN: AUC range: 0.45-0.62) had poorer diagnostic capability than distal leg IENFD for DSP/SFN (P < 0.05). MNSIq had similar diagnostic capability to distal leg IENFD for both DSP/SFN (DSP: AUC: 0.76, 0.68-0.85, SFN: AUC: 0.81, 0.73-0.88). More participants (52%) preferred skin biopsies to CCM.

Interpretation: Distal leg IENFD was the best quantitative measure of DSP/SFN. CCM had poor diagnostic characteristics and fewer patients preferred this test to IENFD. The MNSIq had similar diagnostic characteristics to distal leg IENFD, indicating its value as a diagnostic tool in the clinical setting.

Clinical trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03617185.

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
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
1.90%
发文量
218
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology is a peer-reviewed journal for rapid dissemination of high-quality research related to all areas of neurology. The journal publishes original research and scholarly reviews focused on the mechanisms and treatments of diseases of the nervous system; high-impact topics in neurologic education; and other topics of interest to the clinical neuroscience community.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Comprehensive multicentre retrospective analysis for predicting isocitrate dehydrogenase-mutant lower-grade gliomas. Determinants of long-term paramagnetic rim lesion evolution in people with multiple sclerosis. Dopaminergic therapy disrupts decision-making in impulsive-compulsive Parkinsonian patients. Incremental clinical value of intraplaque neovascularization in predicting recurrent ischemic stroke.
×
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