SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Corneal confocal microscopy may help to distinguish Multiple System Atrophy from Parkinson's disease.

NPJ Parkinsons Dis · 2024-03-16

DOI: 10.1038/s41531-024-00680-8PMID: 38493181

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

Multiple system atrophy (MSA) and Parkinson's disease (PD) have clinical overlapping symptoms, which makes differential diagnosis difficult. Our research aimed to distinguish MSA from PD using corneal confocal microscopy (CCM), a noninvasive and objective test. The study included 63 PD patients, 30 MSA patients, and 31 healthy controls (HC). When recruiting PD and MSA, questionnaires were conducted on motor and non-motor functions, such as autonomic and cognitive functions. Participants underwent CCM to quantify the corneal nerve fibers. Corneal nerve fiber density (CNFD) and corneal nerve fiber length (CNFL) values in MSA are lower than PD (MSA vs. PD: CNFD, 20.68 ± 6.70 vs. 24.64 ± 6.43 no./mm2, p 2, p < 0.05). In MSA + PD (combined), there is a negative correlation between CNFD and the Orthostatic Grading Scale (OGS) (r = -0.284, p = 0.007). Similarly, CNFD in the only MSA group was negatively correlated with the Unified Multiple System Atrophy Rating Scale I and II (r = -0.391, p = 0.044; r = -0.382, p = 0.049). CNFD and CNFL were inversely associated with MSA (CNFD: β = -0.071; OR, 0.932; 95% CI, 0.872 ~ 0.996; p = 0.038; CNFL: β = -0.135; OR, 0.874; 95% CI, 0.768-0.994; p = 0.040). Furthermore, we found the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) of CNFL was the largest, 72.01%. The CCM could be an objective and sensitive biomarker to distinguish MSA from PD. It visually reflects a more severe degeneration in MSA compared to PD.

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.