HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) web only figures All Versions of this Article: jnnp.2007.139220v1 79/7/832    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by van Nes, S I PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by van Nes, S I

Revising two-point discrimination assessment in normal aging and in patients with polyneuropathies

¹ Department of Neurology, Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
² Department of Neurology, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
³ Department of Neurology, Spaarne Hospital, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands

Correspondence to:
S I van Nes, Department of Neurology, Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; s.vannes{at}erasmusmc.nl

Objectives: To revise the static and dynamic normative values for the two-point discrimination test and to examine its applicability and validity in patients with a polyneuropathy.

Methods: Two-point discrimination threshold values were assessed in 427 healthy controls and 99 patients mildly affected by a polyneuropathy. The controls were divided into seven age groups ranging from 20–29, 30–39,..., up to 80 years and older; each group consisted of at least 30 men and 30 women. Two-point discrimination examination took place under standardised conditions on the index finger. Correlation studies were performed between the scores obtained and the values derived from the Weinstein Enhanced Sensory Test (WEST) and the arm grade of the Overall Disability SumScore (ODSS) in the patients’ group (validity studies). Finally, the sensitivity to detect patients mildly affected by a polyneuropathy was evaluated for static and dynamic assessments.

Results: There was a significant age-dependent increase in the two-point discrimination values. No significant gender difference was found. The dynamic threshold values were lower than the static scores. The two-point discrimination values obtained correlated significantly with the arm grade of the ODSS (static values: r = 0.33, p = 0.04; dynamic values: r = 0.37, p = 0.02) and the scores of the WEST in patients (static values: r = 0.58, p = 0.0001; dynamic values: r = 0.55, p = 0.0002). The sensitivity for the static and dynamic threshold values was 28% and 33%, respectively.

Conclusion: This study provides age-related normative two-point discrimination threshold values using a two-point discriminator (an aesthesiometer). This easily applicable instrument could be used as part of a more extensive neurological sensory evaluation.