DIAGNOSTIC-VALUE OF PARACLINICAL TESTS IN MULTIPLE-SCLEROSIS - RELATIVE SENSITIVITIES AND SPECIFICITIES FOR RECLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO THE POSER COMMITTEE CRITERIA
S. Beer et al., DIAGNOSTIC-VALUE OF PARACLINICAL TESTS IN MULTIPLE-SCLEROSIS - RELATIVE SENSITIVITIES AND SPECIFICITIES FOR RECLASSIFICATION ACCORDING TO THE POSER COMMITTEE CRITERIA, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 59(2), 1995, pp. 152-159
The yield of paraclinical tests was evaluated in a prospective study o
f 189 consecutive patients referred for suspected multiple sclerosis (
142 patients with multiple sclerosis, 47 non-multiple sclerosis patien
ts on discharge), Patients were first classified according to the Pose
r criteria by the clinical findings. Subsequently, the results of para
clinical tests (cranial MRI, visually evoked potentials (VEPs), somato
sensory evoked potentials by tibial nerve stimulation (SSEPs), motor e
voked potentials (MEPs), and analysis of CSF for oligoclonal banding a
nd IgG-index (CSF)) were taken into account, The percentage of reclass
ified patients (reclassification sensitivity, RS) was always lower tha
n the percentage of abnormal results (diagnostic sensitivity, DS), and
the divergence of RS v DS differed between the tests (60% v 84% in MR
T, 31% v 77% in CSF, 29% v 37% in VEPs, 20% v 68% in MEPs, and 12% v 4
6% in SSEPs respectively), False reclassifications of non-multiple scl
erosis patients to multiple sclerosis would have occurred with all tes
ts (MRI: six of 47 patients, (reclassification specificity 88%); CSF:
one (98%); VEPs: two (96%); MEPs: two (96%); SSEPs: four (91%); P < 0.
05). Although MRI had superior diagnostic capacity, 57 of the 142 pati
ents with multiple sclerosis were not reclassified by the MRI result,
12 of whom were reclassified by CSF and 18 by one of the evoked potent
ial (EP) studies. Of the 98 patients not reclassified by CSF, 53 were
reclassified by MRI and 39 by EPs. The results suggest that for tbe ev
aluation of paraclinical tests in suspected multiple sclerosis, compar
ison of diagnostic sensitivities is inappropriate. In general, a crani
al MRI contributes most to the diagnosis; however, due to its comparat
ively low specificity and its considerable number of negative results,
EP or CSF studies are often useful, to establish the diagnosis of mul
tiple sclerosis.