ArticleJournal of neurology2019
Comparison of high-frequency and ultrahigh-frequency probes in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Role of Imaging in Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy: A Systematic Review.European journal of neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Emergent technologies in clinical neurophysiology to study the neuromuscular system: IFCN handbook chapter.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2026Review
- Exploring Ultrasonographic Atypical Aspects in Drug-Resistant Multifocal Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- Fascicle differentiation of upper extremity nerves on high-resolution ultrasound with multimodal microscopic verification.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- 3D fascicular reconstruction of median and ulnar nerve: initial experience and comparison between high-resolution ultrasound and MR microscopy.European radiology experimental · 2024Article
- Typical CIDP, distal variant CIDP, and anti-MAG antibody neuropathy: An ultra-high frequency ultrasound comparison of nerve structure.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Ultrasonographic Evaluation of Morphological Changes in Peripheral Nerves after Traumatic Injury and Nerve Repair - A Prospective Study.Ultrasound international open · 2024Article
- Clinical Application of Ultra-High-Frequency Ultrasound.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Nerve Ultrasound as Helpful Tool in Polyneuropathies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Review Article "Spotlight on Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Peripheral Nerve Disease: The Evidence to Date".International journal of general medicine · 2021Review
- Nerve Ultrasound Comparison Between Transthyretin Familial Amyloid Polyneuropathy and Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Current and future applications of ultrasound imaging in peripheral nerve disorders.World journal of radiology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesHigh-frequency ultrasound (HFUS 18-20 MHz) performed on patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) shows a focal enlargement, particularly in the proximal segments of upper-arm motor nerves. Ultrahigh frequency ultrasound (UHFUS 30-70 MHz), having a higher spatial resolution, enables a better characterization of nerve structures. The aim of this study was to compare the two ultrasound probes in the evaluation of motor nerve characteristics in CIDP patients.
methodsEleven patients with definite or probable CIDP underwent an ultrasound evaluation of median and ulnar nerves, bilaterally. Nerve and fascicle cross-sectional area (CSA), vascularization, and echogenicity were assessed.
resultsNerve and fascicle CSA were increased in the proximal segments, especially in the median nerve, in 9/11 patients and in 10/11 patients at the HFUS and UHFUS evaluations, respectively. A statistically significant difference between CSA values obtained with the two probes was found only for fascicle values. UHFUS allowed for a more precise estimation of fascicle size and number than the HFUS. We were able to identify nerve vascularization in 4/11 patients at UHFUS only.
conclusionUHFUS gives more detailed information on the changes in the internal nerve structure in CIDP patients. In particular, it permits to better characterize fascicle size and morphology, and to have a precise estimation of their number. Its frequency range also allows to evaluate nerve vascularization. SIGNIFICANCE: Ultrasound evaluation could become an adjunctive diagnostic tool for CIDP. Further studies are needed to validate the examined parameters as biomarkers for the evaluation and follow-up of CIDP patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31175432What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.