Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Tap Test by Combining the Use of Functional Gait Assessment and Global Rating of Change.
Timed Up and Go test
functional gait assessment
global rating of change scale
idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus
sensitivity and specificity
Journal
Frontiers in neurology
ISSN: 1664-2295
Titre abrégé: Front Neurol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101546899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
31
12
2021
accepted:
07
03
2022
entrez:
14
4
2022
pubmed:
15
4
2022
medline:
15
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although the tap test for patients with suspected idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is still often performed as part of the preoperative evaluation, it is true that some studies have reported the limitations of the tap test, claiming that it does not provide the additional information for appropriate patient selection for surgery. We aimed to determine whether a better method of pre- and post-tap test assessment could lead to appropriate patient selection for shunting. We performed the tap test as part of the preoperative evaluation in all 40 patients who underwent lumboperitoneal shunt surgery for iNPH from April 2021 to September 2021. We retrospectively analyzed the patient data. We examined whether a comprehensive evaluation of the effect of the tap test using the Functional Gait Assessment (FGA) and Global Rating of Change (GRC) scales would identify a wider range of patients who would benefit from shunt surgery than the 3-m Timed Up and Go test (TUG) alone. Assuming a prevalence of 1% for iNPH, the TUG had a sensitivity of 0.23, specificity of 0.71, positive likelihood ratio of 0.79, and negative likelihood ratio of 1.09. When improvement in either the FGA or the GRC was used as a criterion for the validity of the tap test, the sensitivity was 0.88, specificity was 0.17, positive likelihood ratio was 1.06, and negative likelihood ratio was 0.71. Improvement in either the FGA or the GRC is a more sensitive criterion for the effectiveness of the tap test for the gait aspect than the TUG. Since the negative likelihood ratio is lower than that for the TUG alone, it is more appropriate to exclude patients with neither FGA nor GRC improvement from surgical indications than to exclude surgical indications based on a negative TUG.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Although the tap test for patients with suspected idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is still often performed as part of the preoperative evaluation, it is true that some studies have reported the limitations of the tap test, claiming that it does not provide the additional information for appropriate patient selection for surgery. We aimed to determine whether a better method of pre- and post-tap test assessment could lead to appropriate patient selection for shunting.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We performed the tap test as part of the preoperative evaluation in all 40 patients who underwent lumboperitoneal shunt surgery for iNPH from April 2021 to September 2021. We retrospectively analyzed the patient data. We examined whether a comprehensive evaluation of the effect of the tap test using the Functional Gait Assessment (FGA) and Global Rating of Change (GRC) scales would identify a wider range of patients who would benefit from shunt surgery than the 3-m Timed Up and Go test (TUG) alone.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Assuming a prevalence of 1% for iNPH, the TUG had a sensitivity of 0.23, specificity of 0.71, positive likelihood ratio of 0.79, and negative likelihood ratio of 1.09. When improvement in either the FGA or the GRC was used as a criterion for the validity of the tap test, the sensitivity was 0.88, specificity was 0.17, positive likelihood ratio was 1.06, and negative likelihood ratio was 0.71.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Improvement in either the FGA or the GRC is a more sensitive criterion for the effectiveness of the tap test for the gait aspect than the TUG. Since the negative likelihood ratio is lower than that for the TUG alone, it is more appropriate to exclude patients with neither FGA nor GRC improvement from surgical indications than to exclude surgical indications based on a negative TUG.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35418939
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.846429
pmc: PMC8995551
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
846429Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Kameda, Kajimoto, Kambara, Tsujino, Yamada, Takagi, Fukuo, Kosaka, Kanemitsu, Katayama, Tsuji, Yagi, Hiramatsu, Ikeda, Nonoguchi, Furuse, Kawabata, Takami and Wanibuchi.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
BMC Geriatr. 2014 Feb 01;14:14
pubmed: 24484314
Aging Dis. 2019 Feb 01;10(1):23-36
pubmed: 30705765
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018 Sep;172:46-50
pubmed: 29975875
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002 Apr;72(4):503-6
pubmed: 11909911
Phys Ther. 2004 Oct;84(10):906-18
pubmed: 15449976
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2020 Jan 16;17(1):7
pubmed: 31948485
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2019 Aug;183:105385
pubmed: 31207457
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 Aug;100(8):1458-1466
pubmed: 30731067
Neurosurgery. 2019 Jun 1;84(6):E378-E384
pubmed: 30010977
J Neurol Sci. 2016 Mar 15;362:78-84
pubmed: 26944123
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 Nov;99(11):2244-2250
pubmed: 29702069
J Neurol Sci. 2019 Mar 15;398:45-49
pubmed: 30682520
Acta Neurol Scand. 2021 Jul;144(1):21-28
pubmed: 33754339
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002 Dec;73(6):721-6
pubmed: 12438477
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991 Feb;39(2):142-8
pubmed: 1991946
J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17(3):163-70
pubmed: 20046623
Lancet Neurol. 2015 Jun;14(6):585-94
pubmed: 25934242
Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2019 Sep;66:117-124
pubmed: 31358442
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2013 May;84(5):562-8
pubmed: 23250963
Arch Neurol. 1995 Aug;52(8):783-9
pubmed: 7639630
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Oct 15;33(22):2459-63
pubmed: 18923324
Front Aging Neurosci. 2021 Mar 10;13:653964
pubmed: 33790781
Neurol Clin Pract. 2017 Apr;7(2):98-108
pubmed: 29185546
Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2012;52(11):775-809
pubmed: 23183074
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2017 Jun;159(6):995-1003
pubmed: 28251346
Cerebrospinal Fluid Res. 2010 Oct 31;7:18
pubmed: 21040519
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2018 Mar;160(3):509-518
pubmed: 29150794
Acta Neurol Scand. 2018 Feb;137(2):238-244
pubmed: 29023635
Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2021 Feb 15;61(2):63-97
pubmed: 33455998
Med Care. 2003 May;41(5):582-92
pubmed: 12719681
J Clin Neurosci. 2009 Sep;16(9):1180-3
pubmed: 19497748