SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The Value of Sacral Reflex and Sympathetic Skin Reflex in the Diagnosis of Multiple System Atrophy P-Type.

Parkinsons Dis · 2021-01-20

DOI: 10.1155/2021/6646259PMID: 33552462

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

ObjectivesTo observe the characteristics of sacral reflex and sympathetic skin reflex in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and multiple system atrophy P-type (MSA-P) and to analyze their value as a differential diagnostic method.MethodsThe data of 30 healthy people, 58 PD patients, and 52 MSA-P patients from the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University were collected. Electrophysiological bulbocavernosus reflex (BCR) and sympathetic skin response (SSR) were evaluated using the Keypoint EMG/EP system. The latency period, amplitude, and extraction rate of BCR and SSR were compared between the control, PD, and MSA-P groups.ResultsThe incidence of the related autonomic damage in the PD group was lower than that of the MSA-P group. For BCR, the latency period was shorter and the amplitude and elicitation rates were lower in the PD group than in the MSA-P group. For SSR, the latency period was longer in the MSA-P and PD groups than in the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant.ConclusionSSR cannot be used to assess autonomic nerve function. PD patients can have clinical symptoms similar to those of MSA-P patients, but the incidence is lower. Both MSA-P and PD patients have a damage to the BCR arc, but the MSA-P patients have a more severe damage.

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.