Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
Evaluation of the clinical assessment scale for autoimmune encephalitis (CASE) in a retrospective cohort and a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Soellradl Eva, von Oertzen Tim J, Wagner Judith N
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Autoimmune encephalitis (AE) poses significant challenges in clinical management, requiring effective monitoring tools for therapeutic success and relapse detection. This study aims to assess the Clinical Assessment Scale in Autoimmune Encephalitis (CASE) as compared to the modified Rankin scale (mRS) in evaluating AE patients and to determine the real-world adoption of the CASE score.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 20 AE patients, assessing clinical data including symptomatology, diagnostic findings, and therapeutic regimens. Furthermore, we performed a systematic review on the test performance criteria and the real-world use of the CASE score.
RESULTS: The CASE score showed a higher sensitivity in detecting clinical changes compared to the mRS, with a significant correlation between the two scales throughout the disease course (r = 0.85, p < 0.01). A systematic review of 150 articles revealed widespread adoption of the CASE score, especially in Asian populations, demonstrating high reliability and internal consistency.
DISCUSSION: Despite limitations such as retrospective design and small sample size, our findings underscore the CASE score's utility in both clinical practice and research settings. The CASE score emerges as a valuable tool for monitoring AE patients, offering improved sensitivity over existing scales like the mRS. Further validation studies in diverse populations are warranted to establish its broader applicability and inform future therapeutic interventions.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 20 AE patients, assessing clinical data including symptomatology, diagnostic findings, and therapeutic regimens. Furthermore, we performed a systematic review on the test performance criteria and the real-world use of the CASE score.
RESULTS: The CASE score showed a higher sensitivity in detecting clinical changes compared to the mRS, with a significant correlation between the two scales throughout the disease course (r = 0.85, p < 0.01). A systematic review of 150 articles revealed widespread adoption of the CASE score, especially in Asian populations, demonstrating high reliability and internal consistency.
DISCUSSION: Despite limitations such as retrospective design and small sample size, our findings underscore the CASE score's utility in both clinical practice and research settings. The CASE score emerges as a valuable tool for monitoring AE patients, offering improved sensitivity over existing scales like the mRS. Further validation studies in diverse populations are warranted to establish its broader applicability and inform future therapeutic interventions.