ArticleFrontiers in neurology2019
Diagnostic Value of Sural Nerve Biopsy: Retrospective Analysis of Clinical Cases From 1981 to 2017.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Peripheral nerve biopsy in pure neural leprosy: a 26-year experience in Brazil.Brain communications · 2026Article
- Multi-omic identification of perineurial hyperplasia and lipid-associated nerve macrophages in human polyneuropathies.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Basic Pathological Mechanisms in Peripheral Nerve Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Amyloidosis in Childhood: A Review of Clinical Features and Comparison with Adult Forms.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- The multiple roles of nerve biopsy in the diagnosis and prognosis of suspected immune neuropathies.Journal of neurology · 2024Article
- Nerve biopsy: Current indications and decision tools.Muscle & nerve · 2021Review
- Pathological Findings in Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyradiculoneuropathy: A Single-Center Experience.Brain sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nerve biopsy represents the conclusive step in the diagnostic work-up of peripheral neuropathies, and its diagnostic yield is still debated. The aim of this study is to consider the impact of nerve biopsy on reaching a useful diagnosis in different peripheral neuropathies and its changing over time. We retrospectively analyzed 1,179 sural nerve biopsies performed in the period 1981-2017 at Neurological Clinic of Policlinico San Martino (Genoa). We relied on medical records and collected both clinical and pathological data in a database. Biopsy provided univocal diagnoses in 53% of cases (with an increase over time), multiple diagnostic options in 14%, while diagnosis was undetermined in 33% (undetermined reports decreased during the years). In 57% of patients, the pre-biopsy suspicion was confirmed, while in 43% sural biopsy modified the clinical diagnosis. The highest yield was in axonal neuropathies (29% undetermined reports vs. 40% in demyelinating and 48% in mixed neuropathies). In 68% of patients with vasculitic neuropathy, this etiology was already suspected, whereas in 32% nerve biopsy modified the clinical diagnosis. During the years, the number of annually performed biopsies decreased significantly (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.