JNNP

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

Published Online First: 5 July 2007. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2007.118000
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 2008;79:289-293
Copyright © 2008 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
jnnp.2007.118000v1
79/3/289    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kalita, J
Right arrow Articles by Das, M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kalita, J
Right arrow Articles by Das, M

RESEARCH PAPERS

Neurophysiological criteria in the diagnosis of different clinical types of Guillain–Barre syndrome

J Kalita, U K Misra, M Das

Department of Neurology, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India

Correspondence to:
J Kalita, Department of Neurology, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical sciences, Lucknow 226014, India; jkalita{at}sgpgi.ac.in

Background: The diagnostic yield of various neurophysiological criteria may vary in different subforms of Guillain–Barre syndrome (GBS), whose prevalence varies in different geographical areas.

Aims: To evaluate the sensitivity of various neurophysiological criteria in different clinical subtypes of GBS, and their relationship with severity, duration and outcome.

Methods: Consecutive patients with GBS underwent detailed clinical evaluation. Severity was graded on a scale from 0 to 10. Motor and sensory nerve conductions and F wave studies were performed. The diagnostic sensitivity of Albers et al (set 1), Cornblath (set 2), Ho et al (set 3), Dutch GBS study group (set 4), Italian GBS study group (set 5) and Albers and Kelly (set 6) criteria were evaluated and correlated with clinical subtypes of GBS, duration, severity and outcome.

Results: There were 51 patients. Mean disability was 6.8; 34 patients were bedridden and five needed a ventilator. Clinical presentation was pure motor in 31, motorsensory in 18 and pure sensory in two patients. The sensitivity of nerve conduction study in the diagnosis of GBS was highest in set 1 (88.2%) followed by set 3 (86.3%) and set 4 (82.4%) and lowest in set 2 (39.2%). The diagnostic yield of sets 1, 3 and 4 were also higher than sets 2, 5 and 6 in different clinical subtypes of GBS. As per Ho et al, patients could be categorised into acute inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (44 (86.3%)), acute motor axonal neuropathy (4 (7.8%)) and acute motor sensory axonal neuropathy (3 (5.9%)). One (2%) patient died, 22.4% had complete, 57.1% partial and 18.4% poor recovery at 3 months. Outcome was related to severity of illness and compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitude.

Conclusion: The sensitivity of different neurophysiological criteria in the diagnosis of Indian GBS patients varied from 39.2% to 88.2%. The outcome was related to severity of illness and CMAP amplitude.








HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2008 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.