Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Diagnosing small fiber neuropathy in clinical practice: a deep phenotyping study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Diagnosing small fiber neuropathy in clinical practice: a deep phenotyping study
Do you wish to request the book?
Diagnosing small fiber neuropathy in clinical practice: a deep phenotyping study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Diagnosing small fiber neuropathy in clinical practice: a deep phenotyping study
2021
Overview
Background and aims:
Small fiber neuropathy (SFN) is increasingly suspected in patients with pain of uncertain origin, and making the diagnosis remains a challenge lacking a diagnostic gold standard.
Methods:
In this case–control study, we prospectively recruited 86 patients with a medical history and clinical phenotype suggestive of SFN. Patients underwent neurological examination, quantitative sensory testing (QST), and distal and proximal skin punch biopsy, and were tested for pain-associated gene loci. Fifty-five of these patients additionally underwent pain-related evoked potentials (PREP), corneal confocal microscopy (CCM), and a quantitative sudomotor axon reflex test (QSART).
Results:
Abnormal distal intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD) (60/86, 70%) and neurological examination (53/86, 62%) most frequently reflected small fiber disease. Adding CCM and/or PREP further increased the number of patients with small fiber impairment to 47/55 (85%). Genetic testing revealed potentially pathogenic gene variants in 14/86 (16%) index patients. QST, QSART, and proximal IENFD were of lower impact.
Conclusion:
We propose to diagnose SFN primarily based on the results of neurological examination and distal IENFD, with more detailed phenotyping in specialized centers.
