This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective: To design and validate a clinical diagnostic guideline for aiding physicians in confirming or refuting suspected blepharospasm.
Methods: The guideline was developed and validated in a 3-step procedure: 1) identification of clinical items related to the phenomenology of blepharospasm, 2) assessment of the relevance of each item to the diagnosis of blepharospasm, and 3) evaluation of the reliability and diagnostic sensitivity/specificity of the selected clinical items.
Results: Of 19 clinical items initially identified, 7 were admitted by content validity analysis to further assessment. Both neurologists and ophthalmologists achieved satisfactory interobserver agreement for all 7 items, including “involuntary eyelid narrowing/closure due to orbicularis oculi spasms,” “bilateral spasms,” “synchronous spasms,” “stereotyped spasm pattern,” “sensory trick,” “inability to voluntarily suppress the spasms,” and “blink count at rest.” Each selected item yielded unsatisfactory accuracy in discriminating patients with blepharospasm from healthy subjects and patients with other eyelid disturbances. Combining the selected items, however, improved diagnostic sensitivity/specificity. The best combination, yielding 93% sensitivity and 90% specificity, was an algorithm starting with the item “stereotyped, bilateral, and synchronous orbicularis oculi spasms inducing eyelid narrowing/closure” and followed by recognition of “sensory trick” or, alternatively, “increased blinking.”
Conclusion: This study provides an accurate and valid clinical guideline for diagnosing blepharospasm. Use of this guideline would make it easier for providers to recognize dystonia in clinical and research settings.
GLOSSARY
- BR=
- blink rate;
- BSP=
- blepharospasm;
- CVR=
- content validity ratio;
- ICC=
- intraclass correlation coefficient;
- OO=
- orbicularis oculi
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
Supplemental data at www.neurology.org
- Received October 31, 2012.
- Accepted in final form April 4, 2013.
- © 2013 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
NOTE: All authors' disclosures must be entered and current in our database before comments can be posted. Enter and update disclosures at http://submit.neurology.org. Exception: replies to comments concerning an article you originally authored do not require updated disclosures.
- Stay timely. Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- 200 words maximum.
- 5 references maximum. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- 5 authors maximum. Exception: replies can include all original authors of the article.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.