4.6 Article

Polysomnographic Diagnosis of Idiopathic REM Sleep Behavior Disorder

Journal

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
Volume 25, Issue 13, Pages 2044-2051

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/mds.23257

Keywords

RBD; REM sleep; EMG; scoring; diagnosis

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  2. Fonds de la recherche en sante du Quebec
  3. Boehringer-Ingelheim
  4. Sanofi-Aventis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The presence of either excessive tonic chin EMG activity during REM sleep, or excessive phasic submental or limb EMG twitching is required to diagnose REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD). The aim was to identify cut-off values and to assess the sensitivity and specificity of these values taken separately or combined to diagnose idiopathic RBD patients. Eighty patients presenting with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic RBD and 80 age-and gender-matched normal controls were studied in the sleep laboratory. Receiver operating characteristic curves were drawn to find optimal cut-off values for three REM sleep EMG parameters. Tonic and phasic EMG activity were measured in the chin, but not in the limbs. Videos were examined during the recording but were not systematically reviewed by the authors. Total correct classification of 81.9% was found for tonic chin EMG density >= 30%; 83.8% for phasic chin EMG density >= 15% and 75.6% for >= 24 leg movements per hour of REM sleep. Five patients did not fulfill any of these three polysomnographic (PSG) criteria. Conversely, one subject of the control group met the PSG criteria for RBD. This study estimates the diagnostic value of a visual scoring method for the diagnosis of idiopathic RBD and establishes cut-off values to be used in clinical and research set-ups. For the five RBD patients who did not show chin EMG abnormalities, it cannot be excluded that they had increased phasic EMG activity in the upper limbs and presented visible motor activity. (C) 2010 Movement Disorder Society

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available