4.6 Article

Optimizing the electrodiagnostic accuracy in Guillain-Barre syndrome subtypes: Criteria sets and sparse linear discriminant analysis

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 128, Issue 7, Pages 1176-1183

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2017.03.048

Keywords

Guillain-Barre syndrome; Acute inflammatory demyelinating; polyradiculoneuropathy; Reversible conduction failure; Electrodiagnostic criteria; Sparse linear discriminant analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To optimize the electrodiagnosis of Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) subtypes at first study. Methods: The reference electrodiagnosis was obtained in 53 demyelinating and 45 axonal GBS patients on the basis of two serial studies and results of anti-ganglioside antibodies assay. We retrospectively employed sparse linear discriminant analysis (LDA), two existing electrodiagnostic criteria sets (Hadden et al., 1998; Rajabally et al., 2015) and one we propose that additionally evaluates duration of motor responses, sural sparing pattern and defines reversible conduction failure (RCF) in motor and sensory nerves at second study. Results: At first study the misclassification error rates, compared to reference diagnoses, were: 15.3% for sparse LDA, 30% for our criteria, 45% for Rajabally's and 48% for Hadden's. Sparse LDA identified seven most powerful electrophysiological variables differentiating demyelinating and axonal subtypes and assigned to each patient the diagnostic probability of belonging to either subtype. At second study 46.6% of axonal GBS patients showed RCF in two motor and 8.8% in two sensory nerves. Conclusions: Based on a single study, sparse LDA showed the highest diagnostic accuracy. RCF is present in a considerable percentage of axonal patients. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Clinical Neurophy-siology.

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