Diagnostic value of paraclinical tests in multiple sclerosis: relative sensitivities and specificities for reclassification according to the Poser committee criteria.
Open Access
- 1 August 1995
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
- Vol. 59 (2) , 152-159
- https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.59.2.152
Abstract
The yield of paraclinical tests was evaluated in a prospective study of 189 consecutive patients referred for suspected multiple sclerosis (142 patients with multiple sclerosis, 47 non-multiple sclerosis patients on discharge). Patients were first classified according to the Poser criteria by the clinical findings. Subsequently, the results of paraclinical tests (cranial MRI, visually evoked potentials (VEPs), somatosensory evoked potentials by tibial nerve stimulation (SSEPs), motor evoked potentials (MEPs), and analysis of CSF for oligoclonal banding and IgG-index (CSF)) were taken into account. The percentage of reclassified patients (reclassification sensitivity, RS) was always lower than the percentage of abnormal results (diagnostic sensitivity, DS), and the divergence of RS v DS differed between the tests (60% v 84% in MRI, 31% v 77% in CSF, 29% v 37% in VEPs, 20% v 68% in MEPs, and 12% v 46% in SSEPs respectively). False reclassifications of non-multiple sclerosis patients to multiple sclerosis would have occurred with all tests (MRI: six of 47 patients, (reclassification specificity 88%); CSF: one (98%); VEPs: two (96%); MEPs: two (96%); SSEPs: four (91%); P < 0.05). Although MRI had superior diagnostic capacity, 57 of the 142 patients with multiple sclerosis were not reclassified by the MRI result, 12 of whom were reclassified by CSF and 18 by one of the evoked potential (EP) studies. Of the 98 patients not reclassified by CSF, 53 were reclassified by MRI and 39 by EPs. The results suggest that for the evaluation of paraclinical tests in suspected multiple sclerosis, comparison of diagnostic sensitivities is inappropriate. In general, a cranial MRI contributes most to the diagnosis; however, due to its comparatively low specificity and its considerable number of negative results, EP or CSF studies are often useful to establish the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis.Keywords
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- The significance of brain magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities at presentation with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosisBrain, 1993
- AAEM minimonograph #35: Clinical experience with transcranial magnetic stimulationMuscle & Nerve, 1990
- Magnetic brain stimulation: Central motor conduction studies in multiple sclerosisAnnals of Neurology, 1987
- Evaluation of patients with multiple sclerosis by evoked potentials and magnetic resonance imaging: A comparative studyAnnals of Neurology, 1986
- MEASUREMENT OF CENTRAL MOTOR CONDUCTION IN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS BY MAGNETIC BRAIN STIMULATIONThe Lancet, 1986
- New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: Guidelines for research protocolsAnnals of Neurology, 1983
- Evoked potential changes in clinically definite multiple sclerosis: a two year follow up study.Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 1982
- Eine aktuelle Darstellung des Liquorprotein-Profils zur Differentialdiagnose von Schrankenfunktionsstörungen und entzündlichen Prozessen des ZentralnervensystemsAktuelle Neurologie, 1980
- Principles of albumin and IgG analyses in neurological disorders. I. Establishment of reference valuesScandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation, 1977
- PROBLEMS OF EXPERIMENTAL TRIALS OF THERAPY IN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS: REPORT BY THE PANEL ON THE EVALUATION OF EXPERIMENTAL TRIALS OF THERAPY IN MULTIPLE SCLEROSISAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1965