Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Parkinsonism Index in Differentiating Progressive Supranuclear Palsy from Parkinson's Disease among South Indian Population: A Retrospective Case Control Study

Abstract

Context Progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) is a neurodegenerative disorder which comes under Parkinsonism plus syndrome. As this spectrum of disease has many overlapping clinical as well as imaging findings, some quantitative parameters like magnetic resonance Parkinsonism index and midbrain/pons ratio are useful to differentiate PSP from other PD patients. Aims The study aimed to detect sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance Parkinsonism index in differentiating PSP from PD. Settings and Design It was a retrospective case–control study conducted in Sri Manankula Vinayagar Medical College, Puducherry, during the period of January 2018 to June 2019. Materials and Methods The 87 subjects, who were diagnosed and grouped into three categories (PSP, PD, and control) after performing magnetic resonance imaging brain, were reviewed. The parameters like the area of Pons and midbrain, width of MCP and SCP, P/M, M/P, and MRPI were calculated. Statistical Analysis One-way ANOVA and Chi-square test was used. The sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, and cut-off values obtained with receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were determined. Results The mean age of presentation was approximately 75 years with male predominance. The cut-off value of MRPI obtained in this study was 13.4 with 100% sensitivity and specificity. Even though M/P ratio was found to be statistically significant among PSP patients; cut-off value was not obtained. Conclusion MRPI was concluded as the better tool in diagnosing PSP compared with the M/P ratio. Hence the combined qualitative as well as quantitative measurement of MRPI will increase the diagnostic accuracy of PSP.

Planimetric and Volumetric Brainstem MRI Markers in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy, Multiple System Atrophy, and Corticobasal Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…After duplicate record elimination, 1096 records were screened by reviewing the title and abstract, eliminating 702 further studies. For the 337 remaining records, full texts were reviewed, eliminating 315 records (unrelated content: n = 280; patient or control group consisting of <10 subjects: n = 22 [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]; full text unavailable: n = 1 [38]; non-extractable data: n = 1 [39]; data in median/quartiles: n = 4 [40][41][42][43]; identical study cohorts or study cohorts with significant overlap: n = 2 [8,44]; data on PSP/MSA cohorts without distinction of RS/MSA-P phenotypes: n = 5 [45][46][47][48][49]). Five studies were identified via manual search of related papers, references, and citing papers [13,[50][51][52][53].…”