小纤维和混合纤维神经病的角膜共焦显微镜与大型前瞻性队列中的皮肤活检和冷检测的比较。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Asger Bjørnkær, Laura M. Gaist, Jakob V. Holbech, David Gaist, Martin Wirenfeldt, Søren H. Sindrup, Thomas Krøigård
{"title":"小纤维和混合纤维神经病的角膜共焦显微镜与大型前瞻性队列中的皮肤活检和冷检测的比较。","authors":"Asger Bjørnkær,&nbsp;Laura M. Gaist,&nbsp;Jakob V. Holbech,&nbsp;David Gaist,&nbsp;Martin Wirenfeldt,&nbsp;Søren H. Sindrup,&nbsp;Thomas Krøigård","doi":"10.1111/jns.12595","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background and Aims</h3>\n \n <p>The diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy (SFN) is supported by reduced intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD). The noninvasive method corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) has the potential to be a practical alternative. We aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of CCM compared with IENFD and cold detection thresholds (CDT) in SFN and mixed fiber neuropathy (MFN).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>CCM was performed in an unselected prospective cohort of patients with a clinical suspicion of polyneuropathy. Predefined criteria were used to classify SFN and MFN. Neuropathy scores, including the Utah early neuropathy scale (UENS), were used to describe severity. Patients with established other diagnoses were used for diagnostic specificity calculations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Data were taken from 680 patients, of which 244 had SFN or MFN. There was no significant difference in sensitivities [95%CI] of CCM (0.44 [0.38–0.51]), IEFND (0.43 [0.36–0.49]), and CDT (0.34 [0.29–0.41]). CCM specificity (0.75 [0.69–0.81]) was lower (<i>p</i> = .044) than for IENFD (0.99 [0.96–1.00]) but not than for CDT (0.81 [0.75–0.86]). The AUCs of the ROC curves of 0.63, 0.63 and 0.74 respectively, was lower for corneal nerve fiber density (<i>p</i> = .0012) and corneal nerve fiber length (<i>p</i> = .0015) compared with IENFD. While UENS correlated significantly with IENFD (<i>p</i> = .0016; <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = .041) and CDT (<i>p</i> = .0002; <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = .056), it did not correlate with CCM measures.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Interpretation</h3>\n \n <p>The diagnostic utility of CCM in SNF and MFN is limited by the low specificity compared with skin biopsy. Further, CCM is less suitable than skin biopsy and CDT as a marker for neuropathy severity.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":17451,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jns.12595","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Corneal confocal microscopy in small and mixed fiber neuropathy—Comparison with skin biopsy and cold detection in a large prospective cohort\",\"authors\":\"Asger Bjørnkær,&nbsp;Laura M. Gaist,&nbsp;Jakob V. Holbech,&nbsp;David Gaist,&nbsp;Martin Wirenfeldt,&nbsp;Søren H. Sindrup,&nbsp;Thomas Krøigård\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jns.12595\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background and Aims</h3>\\n \\n <p>The diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy (SFN) is supported by reduced intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD). The noninvasive method corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) has the potential to be a practical alternative. We aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of CCM compared with IENFD and cold detection thresholds (CDT) in SFN and mixed fiber neuropathy (MFN).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>CCM was performed in an unselected prospective cohort of patients with a clinical suspicion of polyneuropathy. Predefined criteria were used to classify SFN and MFN. Neuropathy scores, including the Utah early neuropathy scale (UENS), were used to describe severity. Patients with established other diagnoses were used for diagnostic specificity calculations.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Data were taken from 680 patients, of which 244 had SFN or MFN. There was no significant difference in sensitivities [95%CI] of CCM (0.44 [0.38–0.51]), IEFND (0.43 [0.36–0.49]), and CDT (0.34 [0.29–0.41]). CCM specificity (0.75 [0.69–0.81]) was lower (<i>p</i> = .044) than for IENFD (0.99 [0.96–1.00]) but not than for CDT (0.81 [0.75–0.86]). The AUCs of the ROC curves of 0.63, 0.63 and 0.74 respectively, was lower for corneal nerve fiber density (<i>p</i> = .0012) and corneal nerve fiber length (<i>p</i> = .0015) compared with IENFD. While UENS correlated significantly with IENFD (<i>p</i> = .0016; <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = .041) and CDT (<i>p</i> = .0002; <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = .056), it did not correlate with CCM measures.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Interpretation</h3>\\n \\n <p>The diagnostic utility of CCM in SNF and MFN is limited by the low specificity compared with skin biopsy. Further, CCM is less suitable than skin biopsy and CDT as a marker for neuropathy severity.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17451,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jns.12595\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jns.12595\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jns.12595","RegionNum":3,"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

背景和目的:表皮内神经纤维密度降低(IENFD)支持小纤维神经病(SFN)的诊断。非侵入性角膜共聚焦显微镜(CCM)有可能成为一种实用的替代方法。我们旨在评估CCM与IENFD和冷检测阈值(CDT)相比对SFN和混合纤维神经病(MFN)的诊断准确性。方法:在临床怀疑为多发性神经病的未经选择的前瞻性队列中进行CCM。使用预定义的标准对SFN和MFN进行分类。神经病变评分,包括犹他州早期神经病变量表(UENS),用于描述严重程度。已确定其他诊断的患者用于诊断特异性计算。结果:数据取自680名患者,其中244名患者患有SFN或MFN。CCM(0.44[0.38-0.51])、IEFND(0.43[0.36-0.49])和CDT(0.34[0.29-0.41])的敏感性[95%CI]没有显著差异。CCM特异性(0.75[0.69-0.81])较低(p = .044),而不是CDT(0.81[0.75-0.86])。ROC曲线的AUC分别为0.63、0.63和0.74,角膜神经纤维密度的AUC较低(p = .0012)和角膜神经纤维长度(p = .0015)与IENFD相比。UENS与IENFD显著相关(p = .0016;R2 = .041)和CDT(p = .0002;R2 = .056),它与CCM测量没有相关性。解释:CCM在SNF和MFN中的诊断作用受到与皮肤活检相比特异性低的限制。此外,CCM不如皮肤活检和CDT适合作为神经病变严重程度的标志物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Corneal confocal microscopy in small and mixed fiber neuropathy—Comparison with skin biopsy and cold detection in a large prospective cohort

Corneal confocal microscopy in small and mixed fiber neuropathy—Comparison with skin biopsy and cold detection in a large prospective cohort

Background and Aims

The diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy (SFN) is supported by reduced intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD). The noninvasive method corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) has the potential to be a practical alternative. We aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of CCM compared with IENFD and cold detection thresholds (CDT) in SFN and mixed fiber neuropathy (MFN).

Methods

CCM was performed in an unselected prospective cohort of patients with a clinical suspicion of polyneuropathy. Predefined criteria were used to classify SFN and MFN. Neuropathy scores, including the Utah early neuropathy scale (UENS), were used to describe severity. Patients with established other diagnoses were used for diagnostic specificity calculations.

Results

Data were taken from 680 patients, of which 244 had SFN or MFN. There was no significant difference in sensitivities [95%CI] of CCM (0.44 [0.38–0.51]), IEFND (0.43 [0.36–0.49]), and CDT (0.34 [0.29–0.41]). CCM specificity (0.75 [0.69–0.81]) was lower (p = .044) than for IENFD (0.99 [0.96–1.00]) but not than for CDT (0.81 [0.75–0.86]). The AUCs of the ROC curves of 0.63, 0.63 and 0.74 respectively, was lower for corneal nerve fiber density (p = .0012) and corneal nerve fiber length (p = .0015) compared with IENFD. While UENS correlated significantly with IENFD (p = .0016; R2 = .041) and CDT (p = .0002; R2 = .056), it did not correlate with CCM measures.

Interpretation

The diagnostic utility of CCM in SNF and MFN is limited by the low specificity compared with skin biopsy. Further, CCM is less suitable than skin biopsy and CDT as a marker for neuropathy severity.

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
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
7.90%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System is the official journal of the Peripheral Nerve Society. Founded in 1996, it is the scientific journal of choice for clinicians, clinical scientists and basic neuroscientists interested in all aspects of biology and clinical research of peripheral nervous system disorders. The Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes high quality articles on cell and molecular biology, genomics, neuropathic pain, clinical research, trials, and unique case reports on inherited and acquired peripheral neuropathies. Original articles are organized according to the topic in one of four specific areas: Mechanisms of Disease, Genetics, Clinical Research, and Clinical Trials. The journal also publishes regular review papers on hot topics and Special Issues on basic, clinical, or assembled research in the field of peripheral nervous system disorders. Authors interested in contributing a review-type article or a Special Issue should contact the Editorial Office to discuss the scope of the proposed article with the Editor-in-Chief.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信