4.3 Article

Routine MRI for the differential diagnosis of Parkinson's disease, MSA, PSP, and CBD

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURAL TRANSMISSION
卷 110, 期 2, 页码 151-169

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00702-002-0785-5

关键词

MRI; semi-quantitative analysis; Parkinson's disease; multiple system atrophy; progressive supranuclear palsy; corticobasal degeneration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We assessed the usefulness of routine MRI for the differential diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (PD) with atypical parkinsonian syndromes in everyday clinical practice. We studied routinely performed MRI in PD (n = 32), multiple system atrophy (MSA, n = 28), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP, n = 30), and corticobasal degeneration (CBD, n = 26). From a preliminary analysis of 26 items, 4 independent investigators rated 11 easily recognizable MRI pointers organized as a simple scoring system. The frequency, severity and inter-rater agreement were determined. The total severity score was subdivided into cortical, putaminal, midbrain, and pontocerebellar scores. The frequency of putaminal involvement (100%) and vermian cerebellar atrophy (45%) was significantly higher in MSA, but that of cortical atrophy (50%), midbrain atrophy and 3(rd) ventricle enlargement (75%) was higher in PSP and CBD. The median total score fairly differentiated atypical parkinsonian syndromes from PD (positive predictive value-PPV-90%). However, the median total score was unable to differentiate atypical parkinsonian syndromes each other. The cortical score distinguished CBD and PSP from MSA with a fair PPV (>90%). The PPV of the putaminal score was high (70%) for the differential diagnosis of MSA with PSP and CBD. The midbrain score was significantly higher in PSP and CBD compared to MSA. These results are in accordance with the underlying pathology found in these disorders and demonstrate that a simple MRI scoring procedure may help the neurologist to differentiate primary causes of parkinsonism in everyday practice.

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

4.3
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