4.6 Article

Assessment of degenerative cervical myelopathy differs between specialists and may influence time to diagnosis and clinical outcomes

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207709

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research [CS-2015-15-023]
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. MRC
  4. NIHR Clinician Scientist Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy [DCM] often presents with non-specific symptoms and signs. It progresses insidiously and leads to permanent neurological dysfunction. Decompressive surgery can halt disease progression, however significant delays in diagnosis result in increased disability and limit recovery. The nature of early DCM symptoms is unknown, moreover it has been suggested incomplete examination contributes to missed diagnosis. This study examines how DCM is currently assessed, if assessment differs between stages of healthcare, and whether this influences patient management. Study design Retrospective cohort study. Methods Cervical MRI scans (N = 1123) at a tertiary neurosciences center, over a single year, were screened for patients with DCM (N = 43). Signs, symptoms, and disease severity of DCM were extracted from patient records. Patients were considered at 3 phases of clinical assessment: primary care, secondary care, and surgical assessment. Results Upper limb paraesthesia and urinary dysfunction were consistently the most and least prevalent symptoms respectively. Differences between assessing clinicians were present in the reporting of: limb pain (p<0.005), objective limb weakness (p=0.01), hyperreflexia (p<0.005), Hoffmann reflex (p<0.005), extensor plantar reflex (p=0.007), and lower limb spasticity (p<0.005). Pathological reflexes were least frequently assessed by primary care doctors. Conclusion DCM assessment varies significantly between assessors. Reporting of key features of DCM is especially low in primary care. Incomplete assessment may hinder early diagnosis and referral to spinal surgery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据