Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31933160›Full record

ArticleCerebellum (London, England)2020

Recessive Ataxia Differential Diagnosis Algorithm (RADIAL) Versus Specific Niemann-Pick Type C Suspicion Indices: A Retrospective Algorithm Comparison.

Mathieu Anheim, Juan V Torres Martin, Stefan A Kolb

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cerebellum (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mathieu AnheimDepartment of Neurology, Hautepierre Hospital, University Hospital of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. mathieu.anheim@chru-strasbourg.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8121-0605
Juan V Torres MartinSyntax for Science SL, Mallorca, Spain.
Stefan A KolbActelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Allschwil, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early diagnosis of Niemann-Pick disease type C (NPC) is crucial to slow the progression of neurological manifestations. Different tools were developed to aid diagnosis of NPC, but to date, no study has compared their performance. We aimed to compare the RADIAL algorithm, intended for the differential diagnosis of autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxias (ARCAs) and NPC-specific suspicion indices (SIs). This study was a retrospective analysis of data from 834 patients with molecularly confirmed ARCAs, including 57 NPC cases (RADIAL cohort). We aimed to compare the algorithm performance of RADIAL (Top 1 and Top 3) with that of four SIs (Original, Refined, 2/3 and 2/7) in discriminating NPC cases and non-NPC cases. We also identified ARCAs closely related to NPC as those with low specificity to detect non-NPC cases and described differential and overlapping features with NPC. Overall, excellent sensitivity and specificity (> 0.90) were achieved with both RADIAL and SI tools for NPC cases. The highest sensitivity was attained with the 2/7 SI, Refined SI and Top 3 RADIAL algorithms. Top 1 and Top 3 RADIAL were the most specific tools, followed by the Original SI. The individual comparison of each ARCA revealed that Wilson disease, PLA2G6-associated neurodegeneration, and hypomyelinating leukodystrophy (POLR3A) are frequent NPC false positives (PLA2G6 and POL3A only with the SIs). Both RADIAL and SI diagnostic approaches showed strong discriminatory potential and may be useful screening tools in different clinical contexts.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAdultDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMaleNiemann-Pick Disease, Type CRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificitySpinocerebellar DegenerationsDiagnostic algorithmNiemann-Pick disease type CSensitivitySpecificitySuspicion index

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.