ArticleAnnals of Indian Academy of Neurology
The High Value of External Anal- and Urethral-Sphincter Electromyography in Differential Diagnosis with MSA-P, PD, and PSP.
Article in Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Case Report: When multiple system atrophy masquerades as CASPR2 autoimmune encephalopathy: a diagnostic pitfall.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- External Anal- and Urethral-Sphincter Electromyography for Differentiating MSA-P, PD and PSP: Using a Needle to Sort the Haystack!Annals of Indian Academy of NeurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: It is a challenge to differentiate multiple system atrophy parkinsonism (MSA-P), Parkinson's disease (PD), and progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP). We aimed to explore the value of external anal-sphincter electromyography (EAS-EMG) and urethral-sphincter electromyography (US-EMG) in differential diagnosis with MSA-P, PD, and PSP. Methods: A total of 149 subjects, including 27 MSA-P, 100 PD, and 22 PSP, were recruited. The average duration and amplitude of motor unit potentials (MUPs), percentage of polyphasic MUPs, amplitude during strong contraction, and recruitment pattern during maximal voluntary contraction were recorded. The differences in EAS-EMG and US-EMG results between MSA-P, PD, and PSP were analyzed. Results: In EAS-EMG examination, the average duration of MUPs of MSA-P was significantly longer than that of PD and PSP; the percentage of polyphasic MUPs and the ratio of simple phase and simple-mix phase of MSA-P and PSP were significantly higher than that of PD; the amplitude during strong contraction of MSA-P was significantly lower than that of PD. In US-EMG examination, the average duration of MUPs in male MSA-P was significantly longer than that in male PD and PSP; the ratio of simple phase and simple-mix phase in male MSA-P was significantly higher than that in male PD; there was no statistical difference in US-EMG indexes between male PD and PSP male. And because only one female PSP was examined, only female MSA-P and PD were compared, the average duration of MUPs in female MSA-P was significantly longer than that in female PD; the ratio of simple phase and simple-mix phase in female MSA-P was significantly higher than that in female PD. Conclusion: The average duration of MUPs and the ratio of the simple phase and simple-mix phase of EAS-EMG and US-EMG all can provide the basis for the differential diagnosis between MSA-P and PD. US-EMG can be used as a supplement to differentiate MSA-P from PD when EAS-EMG is limited. The only discriminating indicator between MSA-P and PSP seems to be the average duration of MUPs of EAS-EMG and US-EMG. There is still a lack of diagnostic electromyography indicators between PD and PSP.
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.