Virtual Compared With In-Person Neurologic Examination Study.

Background and objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic forced a shift to virtual care in several neurologic care settings. Little is known about the validity of the virtual neurologic examination (VNE) for clinical decision making when compared with the in-person neurologic examination (IPNE). The objective of this study was to investigate the utility of the VNE in arriving at an accurate localization and diagnosis in comparison with the traditional IPNE in an ambulatory outpatient setting.

Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients examined virtually and in-person within 4 months at outpatient general neurology and neuromuscular clinics from 2 tertiary academic care centers during the COVID-19 pandemic was conducted. The Cohen kappa coefficient was calculated to test agreement between virtual and in-person assessment results, and descriptive statistical methods were used to compare accuracy, localization, and diagnosis.

Results: A total of 81 patients met the inclusion criteria. Overall, there was fair agreement between VNE and IPNE (64% agreement, p = 0.003). Substantial agreement between VNE and IPNE was observed for gait abnormalities; moderate agreement for extraocular movements, facial weakness, dysarthria, fasciculation, and lower limb weakness; and fair agreement for bulk, upper limb weakness, and sensation. No agreement between VNE and IPNE was seen for hypokinetic or hyperkinetic movements and cerebellar signs. Compared with the IPNE, specificity of the VNE was 86% and sensitivity was 56%. Some cases demonstrated a consistent localization (44%) and diagnosis (57%) after virtual and in-person assessments. The localization was changed in 15% and refined in 41% of cases between visits. The diagnosis was changed in 14% and refined in 30% of cases.

Discussion: The high rates of agreement in detecting an abnormality on the VNE and IPNE for some maneuvers and resultant clinical impressions may support the validity of the VNE for initial consultation depending on the clinical scenario. The VNE seems to be a good surrogate evaluation compared with the IPNE for certain chief complaints. The low sensitivity suggests that a normal VNE should warrant further in-person clinical correlation, especially in the context of a highly concerning history. The IPNE is more sensitive in detecting subtle abnormalities on examination, and a low threshold should be used to bring a patient in for an IPNE if the VNE is normal in certain clinical contexts.