Âé¶¹´«Ã½Ó³»­

Âé¶¹´«Ã½Ó³»­

Explore the latest content from across our publications

Log In

Forgot Password?
Create New Account

Loading... please wait

Abstract Details

NorthShore Neuropathy Impairment Scale (NSNIS): A Validation of an Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Based Neuropathy Scale
Neuromuscular and Clinical Neurophysiology (EMG)
Neuromuscular and Clinical Neurophysiology (EMG) Posters (7:00 AM-5:00 PM)
065
Validation of an electronic medical record (EMR) based neuropathy scale.

We developed a structured clinical documentation support (SCDS) toolkit that standardizes polyneuropathy patient data collection to conform to Best Practices for evaluating patients with polyneuropathies. Part of this project was to design a practical, EMR embedded neuropathy scale, that can be easily used in all newly diagnosed polyneuropathy cases.

Logistic regressions used total NorthShore Neuropathy Impairment Scale (NSNIS) scores, age, and sex as predictors for a diagnosis of polyneuropathy. Training and testing of the logistic regressions utilized a 75/25 split. Categories to predict were: diagnosis of polyneuropathy, pattern of involvement (large vs. small fiber), presence of autonomic symptoms, anatomic distribution (polyneuropathy, radiculopathy, mononeuropathy), etiology (acquired, hereditary, idiopathic), clinical course (progressive, relapsing, uniphasic), neurophysiological mechanism (axonopathy, myelinopathy, uncertain). 

The NSNIS was used in 2,215 new patients evaluated for a diagnosis of polyneuropathy. Out of these, the diagnosis of polyneuropathy was established in 1,182. The NSNIS is highly predictive for a diagnosis of polyneuropathy (AUC 0.717).   For pattern of involvement, the NSNIS performed better in cases of large fiber polyneuropathy (AUC 0.81) compared to cases with small fiber polyneuropathy (AUC 0.63), although it performed better in patients with autonomic symptoms (AUC 0.768). Prediction of anatomic distribution of findings was as follows: isolated polyneuropathy (AUC 0.713), added radiculopathy (AUC 0.778), added mononeuropathy (AUC 0.713). When looking at potential etiologies, the NSNIS was more predictive of a hereditary cause (AUC 0.848) compared to idiopathic (AUC 0.566) and acquired etiologies (AUC 0.657).   NSNIS performed equally well in axonopathies (AUC 0.718) compared to primary myelinopathies (AUC 0.708).

NSNIS is easy to use with our SCDS toolkit and is moderately predictive for a diagnosis of polyneuropathy in our patient population.
Authors/Disclosures
Alexandru C. Barboi, MD (IU Health Neuroscience Center)
PRESENTER
Dr. Barboi has nothing to disclose.
No disclosure on file
Octavia B. Kincaid, MD Dr. Kincaid has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for GLG Group.
Megan M. Shanks, MD (Endeavor NorthShore Health System) Dr. Shanks has nothing to disclose.
Roberta Frigerio, MD (NorthShore University HealthSystem) Dr. Frigerio has nothing to disclose.
No disclosure on file
Demetrius M. Maraganore, MD, FÂé¶¹´«Ã½Ó³»­ (Tulane University School of Medicine) Dr. Maraganore has nothing to disclose.