ArticleMuscle & nerve2020
Lowering the cutoff value for increment increases the sensitivity for the diagnosis of Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome.
Article in Muscle & nerve, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Amifampridines are the Most Effective Drugs for Treating Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome With a Focus on Pediatric Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome.Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 2024Review
- Nationwide survey of Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome in Japan.BMJ neurology open · 2022Article
- Lowering the cutoff value for increment increases the sensitivity for the diagnosis of Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome.Muscle & nerve · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncrement of compound muscle action potential amplitude is a diagnostic hallmark of Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome (LEMS). Making a diagnosis can be challenging, therefore, a proper cutoff for abnormal increment is highly relevant for improved recognition of this rare disease.
methodsWe determined the sensitivity and specificity of 60% and 100% cutoff values in all consecutive patients who underwent increment testing in our hospital from 1999 to 2016.
resultsWe included 156 patients, 63 with LEMS and 93 without LEMS. Sensitivity of a 60% cutoff for increment testing was 77.8% (95% confidence interval 65.5%-87.3%) and 58.7% (45.6%-71.0%) for 100%. Specificity was 98.9% (94.2%-100%) and 100% (96.1%-100%) using a threshold of 60% and 100%, respectively.
conclusionsLowering the cutoff value for abnormal increment to 60% greatly increases sensitivity to diagnose LEMS without an overt loss in specificity.
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.