4.5 Article

Blink Reflex Examination in Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Compared to Diseases Affecting the Peripheral Nervous System and Healthy Controls

期刊

BRAIN SCIENCES
卷 13, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci13101384

关键词

blink reflex; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; bulbar lesion; upper motor neuron; lower motor neuron; motor neuron disease; peripheral nervous system

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found significant differences in blink reflex parameters between ALS patients and healthy controls, suggesting that blink reflex examination could be a promising tool for monitoring disease progression and serving as a prognostic biomarker in ALS patients. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal form of neuromuscular disease. The aim of this study was to assess changes in the blink reflex (BR) parameters as a valid and easy-to-use tool in ALS patients. We assessed the BR test in patients with a definitive diagnosis of ALS, healthy volunteers, and patients with diseases affecting the peripheral nervous system. The BR was studied in 29 patients who met the Awaji criteria. Latencies were compared with our healthy controls (N = 50) and other diseases of the peripheral nervous system (N = 61). The ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) was used to evaluate functional status. Significantly prolonged R2i and R2c latencies were found in the ALS group compared with the healthy control group (p < 0.001). The latencies of R1, R2i, R2c were all increased in the bulbar subtype compared to the limb-onset subtype (p < 0.05). According to our results, BR examination might be a promising tool to monitor the course of the disease or serve as a prognostic biomarker in patients with ALS, but it should be assessed in further studies. The abnormalities detected through BR might help perform earlier interventions in ALS patients and might be useful in other diseases affecting the peripheral nervous system.

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

4.5
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