Positive paraneoplastic panels: Probabilities, perils, and pearls

Affiliations

¹ Neurological Institute, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
² Department of Neurology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.

Editorial

David C Preston et al. Muscle Nerve. 2022 May.

. 2022 May;65(5):489-491.

doi: 10.1002/mus.27529. Epub 2022 Mar 9.

¹ Neurological Institute, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
² Department of Neurology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.

No abstract available

Keywords: Bayesian; acetylcholine receptor antibody; myasthenia gravis; panel; paraneoplastic.

References

1. Albadareen R, Gronseth G, Goeden M, Sharrock M, Lechtenberg C, Wang Y. Paraneoplastic autoantibody panels: sensitivity and specificity, a retrospective cohort. Int J Neurosci. 2017;127:531-538.
1. Budhram A, Yang L, Bhayana V, Mills JR, Dubey D. Clinical sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of neural antibody testing for autoimmune encephalitis. J Appl Lab Med. 2022;7:350-356.
1. Ebright MJ, Li SH, Reynolds E, et al. Unintended consequences of Mayo paraneoplastic evaluations. Neurology. 2018;91:e2057-e2066.
1. Nodera H, Herrmann DN, Holloway RG, Logigian EL. A Bayesian argument against rigid cut-offs in electrodiagnosis of median neuropathy at the wrist. Neurology. 2003;60:458-464.
1. Benatar M. A systematic review of diagnostic studies in myasthenia gravis. Neuromuscul Disord. 2006;16:459-467.