4.7 Article

Using 'swallow-tail' sign and putaminal hypointensity as biomarkers to distinguish multiple system atrophy from idiopathic Parkinson's disease: A susceptibility-weighted imaging study

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 27, 期 8, 页码 3174-3180

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4743-x

关键词

Idiopathic Parkinson's disease; Multiple system atrophy; Swallow tail; Putaminal hypointensity; Susceptibility-weighted imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate the value of 'swallow-tail' sign and putaminal hypointensity on 3 T susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) for distinguishing multiple system atrophy (MSA) from idiopathic Parkinson's disease (IPD). Three groups - 39 MSA patients, 18 IPD patients,and 31 healthy controls (HCs) - were administered a 3 T SWI sequence to evaluate 'swallow-tail' sign and putaminal hypointensity using visual scales from 0 to 2 and 0 to 3 scores, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of the two signs separately and combined was calculated using a receiver operating characteristic curve, with clinical diagnosis as the gold standard. The scores of 'swallow-tail' sign were lower in IPD than in MSA or in HCs, as well as for putaminal hypointensity in IPD or HCs than in MSA (p < 0.05). The sensitivity and specificity of 'swallow-tail' sign and putaminal hypointensity were 87.9% and 83.3%, and 35.9% and 100%, respectively, in the respective patient groups. The area under the curve of combined signs was increased from 0.85 ('swallow tail') or 0.68 (putaminal hypointensity) to 0.93. The combination of 'swallow-tail' sign and putaminal hypointensity can increase the accuracy of discriminating between MSA and IPD. aEuro cent Differential diagnosis of MSA and IPD is still challenging in clinical practice. aEuro cent Absence of 'swallow-tail' sign is a valuable biomarker for IPD on SWI. aEuro cent Putaminal hypointensity is a valuable biomarker for MSA on SWI. aEuro cent Combined 'swallow- tail' sign and putaminal hypointensity increase diagnostic accuracy.

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

4.7
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