SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Investigating the 1-year decline in midbrain-to-pons ratio in the differential diagnosis of PSP and IPD.

J Neurol · 2020-12-04

DOI: 10.1007/s00415-020-10327-2PMID: 33277666

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundA reliable measure of PSP-specific midbrain atrophy, the midbrain-to-pons ratio (MTPR) has been reported to support the differential diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) from idiopathic Parkinson's disease (IPD). Since longitudinal analyses are lacking so far, the present study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of the relative change of MTPR (relΔt_MTPR) over a 1-year period in patients with PSP, IPD, and healthy controls (HC).MethodsMidsagittal individual MRIs of patients with PSP (n = 15), IPD (n = 15), and healthy controls (HC; n = 15) were assessed and the MTPR at baseline and after 1 year were defined. The diagnostic accuracy of the MTPR and its relative change were evaluated using ROC curve analyses.ResultsPSP-patients had a significantly lower MTPR at baseline (M = 0.45 ± 0.06), compared to both non-PSP groups (F (2, 41) = 62.82, p t_MTPR for PSP (M = - 4.74% ± 4.48) from IPD (M =  + 1.29 ± 3.77) was good (76.6%), ROC analysis did not reveal a significant improvement of diagnostic accuracy by combining the MTPR and relΔt_MTPR (p = 0.670). Still, specificity for PSP increased, though not significantly (p = 0.500).ConclusionThe present results indicate that the relΔt_MTPR is a potentially useful tool to support the differential diagnosis of PSP from IPD. For its relative 1-year change, still, more evaluation is needed.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.