Terminal latency index (TLI) and sensory electrophysiology in paraproteinemic chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP)
Neurology, Vol: 88, Issue: 16
2017
- 20Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage20
- Abstract Views20
Conference Paper Description
Objective: To differentiate sensory electrophysiology, TLI and treatment response in patients with paraproteinemic CIDP. Background: Low TLI has been reported as a useful electrophysiological marker for MAG-CIDP. To our knowledge comparison of sensory electrophysiology and TLI of paraproteinemic CIDP subgroups have not been previously reported. Design/Methods: Retrospective review (January 2000-December 2015) of 89 patients with CIDP fulfilling electrophysiological criteria (AAN ad hoc subcommittee and Albers and colleagues).CIDP patients with diabetes(n=18) were excluded. 71 patients were divided into idiopathic (n=40) and paraproteinemic CIDP (n=31). Paraproteinemic CIDP subgroups: MAG (8), non-MAG(8) and IgG(15) were compared to idiopathic CIDP (40). These groups were compared for demographics, history of cancer, CSF protein, sensory conductions, TLI measurements and response to treatment using chi-square tests for binary and categorical variables and t-tests for continuous measures. Results: There was a higher proportion of females in idiopathic-CIDP compared to non-MAG-CIDP (50% vs 13%). Idiopathic group having a higher proportion of patients on monotherapy (59% vs 50%) and combination therapy (38% vs 17%) compared to non-MAG. Higher mean CSF protein compared to MAG-CIDP(p=0.001) was seen in the idiopathic. The difference between idiopathic and IgG-CIDP was significant for overall Rx response (p=0.025) and Rx response in patients with follow-up(p=0.01). For both variables, patients in the idiopathic group had a higher proportion of patients on combination therapy and lower proportion of no treatment offered compared to patients in the IgG-CIDP. 50% of non-MAG-CIDP patients had a history of cancer vs 0% of MAG-CIDP. None of the other differences were significant. There were no group differences in sensory electrophysiology and TLI. Conclusions: Sensory electrophysiology and TLI may have no value in differentiating paraproteinemic CIDP. CSF protein is higher in idiopathic CIDP compared to MAG-CIDP. Idiopathic-CIDP has a higher proportion of females compared to non-MAG-CIDP and a higher proportion of patients on combination therapy compared to IgG-CIDP. Cancer screening should be considered in patients with non-MAG-CIDP.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know