Influence of timing on electrodiagnosis of Guillain–Barré syndrome in the first six weeks: A retrospective study

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Influence of timing on electrodiagnosis of Guillain–Barré syndrome in the first six weeks: A retrospective study. / Rajabally, Yusuf A.; Hiew, Fu Liong; Winer, John B.

In: Journal of the Neurological Sciences, Vol. 357, No. 1-2, 15.10.2015, p. 143-145.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{826948d46fa14915a76cdf52665a726b,
title = "Influence of timing on electrodiagnosis of Guillain–Barr{\'e} syndrome in the first six weeks: A retrospective study",
abstract = "The effect of timing is uncertain on the electrophysiology of Guillain–Barr{\'e} syndrome (GBS). On this may however depend the usefulness of systematic serial studies performed at specific time intervals. We retrospectively analyzed records of 118 consecutive patients with GBS from Birmingham, U.K. (2001–2012), studied between 0–14 days, or, 15–42 days post-onset using new criteria which we recently proposed [4]. Rates of acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) (p = 0.45), axonal GBS (p = 0.32) and equivocal forms (p = 0.46) were similar for both timings. Similarly, no significant differences between timings were observed using Hadden et al.'s criteria. Proportions were comparable to published serial studies for both timings, for AIDP (p = 0.25; p = 0.10) and axonal GBS (p = 0.73; p = 0.56) but were higher than with serial studies for equivocal forms in patients studied on days 0–14 (p = 0.012), although not in those studied on days 15–42 (p = 0.17). This suggests that over the initial 6 weeks post-onset, timing fails to influence subtype proportions in a large GBS cohort, irrespective of criteria used. Repeat studies appear therefore unlikely to be helpful when systematically performed within this time frame, except in equivocal cases. The benefit of repeat studies remains possible at other times but may need to be individualized, and requires future prospective evaluation.",
keywords = "acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, serial, Guillain-Barr{\'e} syndrome, axonal, equivocal, Electrophysiology",
author = "Rajabally, {Yusuf A.} and Hiew, {Fu Liong} and Winer, {John B.}",
year = "2015",
month = oct,
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.jns.2015.07.018",
language = "English",
volume = "357",
pages = "143--145",
journal = "Journal of the Neurological Sciences",
issn = "0022-510X",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1-2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Influence of timing on electrodiagnosis of Guillain–Barré syndrome in the first six weeks: A retrospective study

AU - Rajabally, Yusuf A.

AU - Hiew, Fu Liong

AU - Winer, John B.

PY - 2015/10/15

Y1 - 2015/10/15

N2 - The effect of timing is uncertain on the electrophysiology of Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS). On this may however depend the usefulness of systematic serial studies performed at specific time intervals. We retrospectively analyzed records of 118 consecutive patients with GBS from Birmingham, U.K. (2001–2012), studied between 0–14 days, or, 15–42 days post-onset using new criteria which we recently proposed [4]. Rates of acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) (p = 0.45), axonal GBS (p = 0.32) and equivocal forms (p = 0.46) were similar for both timings. Similarly, no significant differences between timings were observed using Hadden et al.'s criteria. Proportions were comparable to published serial studies for both timings, for AIDP (p = 0.25; p = 0.10) and axonal GBS (p = 0.73; p = 0.56) but were higher than with serial studies for equivocal forms in patients studied on days 0–14 (p = 0.012), although not in those studied on days 15–42 (p = 0.17). This suggests that over the initial 6 weeks post-onset, timing fails to influence subtype proportions in a large GBS cohort, irrespective of criteria used. Repeat studies appear therefore unlikely to be helpful when systematically performed within this time frame, except in equivocal cases. The benefit of repeat studies remains possible at other times but may need to be individualized, and requires future prospective evaluation.

AB - The effect of timing is uncertain on the electrophysiology of Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS). On this may however depend the usefulness of systematic serial studies performed at specific time intervals. We retrospectively analyzed records of 118 consecutive patients with GBS from Birmingham, U.K. (2001–2012), studied between 0–14 days, or, 15–42 days post-onset using new criteria which we recently proposed [4]. Rates of acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) (p = 0.45), axonal GBS (p = 0.32) and equivocal forms (p = 0.46) were similar for both timings. Similarly, no significant differences between timings were observed using Hadden et al.'s criteria. Proportions were comparable to published serial studies for both timings, for AIDP (p = 0.25; p = 0.10) and axonal GBS (p = 0.73; p = 0.56) but were higher than with serial studies for equivocal forms in patients studied on days 0–14 (p = 0.012), although not in those studied on days 15–42 (p = 0.17). This suggests that over the initial 6 weeks post-onset, timing fails to influence subtype proportions in a large GBS cohort, irrespective of criteria used. Repeat studies appear therefore unlikely to be helpful when systematically performed within this time frame, except in equivocal cases. The benefit of repeat studies remains possible at other times but may need to be individualized, and requires future prospective evaluation.

KW - acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy

KW - serial

KW - Guillain-Barré syndrome

KW - axonal

KW - equivocal

KW - Electrophysiology

U2 - 10.1016/j.jns.2015.07.018

DO - 10.1016/j.jns.2015.07.018

M3 - Article

VL - 357

SP - 143

EP - 145

JO - Journal of the Neurological Sciences

JF - Journal of the Neurological Sciences

SN - 0022-510X

IS - 1-2

ER -