evaluation of clinical and paraclinical findings for the differential diagnosis of autoimmune and infectious encephalitis
Clicks: 249
ID: 177192
2018
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
30.0
/100
249 views
35 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #170 of 263 articles by views in journal of photochemistry and photobiology a: chemistry
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 263 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Background: The differential diagnosis of autoimmune and infectious encephalitis is notoriously difficult. For this study, we compare the presenting clinical symptoms and paraclinical test results of autoimmune and infectious encephalitis patients. A clinical algorithm for the diagnosis of autoimmune encephalitis has recently been published. We test these Graus criteria on our cohort for diagnostic sensitivity and specificity within the first week of presentation.Methods: We included all patients seen at our department within a 10-year-period who were diagnosed with encephalitis. The discharge diagnoses served as the reference standard for testing the clinical algorithm for two conditions: use of all the clinical information available on a patient during the first week of hospital admission assuming undefined autoantibody status and microbiological test results (C1) vs. consideration of all the information available on a patient, including the results of serological and microbiological testing (C2).Results: Eighty-four patients (33 autoimmune, 51 infectious encephalitis) were included in the study. Fifty-one (17 autoimmune, 34 infectious) had a definite clinical diagnosis. The two groups differed significantly for the presence of headache, fever, epileptic seizures, and CSF cell-count at presentation. Application of the clinical algorithm resulted in a low sensitivity (58%) and very low specificity (8%) for the diagnosis of possible autoimmune encephalitis. The latter increased considerably in the subgroups of probable and definite autoimmune encephalitis. Whereas the sensitivity of the individual diagnostic categories was clearly time-dependent, the specificity rested foremost on the knowledge of the results of microbiological testing. Anti-CASPR2- and -LGI1-associated autoimmune encephalitis and tick-borne virus encephalitis presented particular diagnostic pitfalls.Conclusions: We define clinical symptoms and paraclinical test results which prove valuable for the differentiation between infectious and autoimmune encephalitis. Sensitivity and specificity of the clinical algorithm clearly depended on the amount of time passed after hospital admission and knowledge of microbiological test results. Accepting this limitation for the acute setting, the algorithm remains a valuable diagnostic aid for antibody-negative autoimmune encephalitis or in resource-poor settings. The initiation of immune therapy however should not be delayed if an autoimmune etiology is considered likely, even if the diagnostic criteria of the algorithm are not (yet) fulfilled.
| Reference Key |
wagner2018frontiersevaluation
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Judith N. Wagner;Ognian Kalev;Michael Sonnberger;Ingomar Krehan;Tim J. von Oertzen |
| Journal | journal of photochemistry and photobiology a: chemistry |
| Year | 2018 |
| DOI |
10.3389/fneur.2018.00434
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.