You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Review
Evaluation of small fibre neuropathies
  1. Naveed Malek,
  2. Joseph Hutchinson,
  3. Asma Naz,
  4. Carla Cordivari
  1. Department of Neurophysiology, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Naveed Malek; nmalek{at}nhs.net

Abstract

Small fibre neuropathies (SFNs) are common and can significantly affect patients’ lives due to debilitating pain and autonomic symptoms. We explain the tests that neurologists can use to diagnose SFNs and how neurophysiologists perform and interpret them. This review focuses on neurophysiological tests that can be used to investigate SFNs, their sensitivity, specificity and limitations. Some of these tests are available only in specialist centres. However, newer technologies are emerging from scientific research that may make it easier to diagnose these conditions in the future.

  • PAIN
  • NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
  • NEUROPATHY

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information. Not applicable.

https://doi.org/10.1136/pn-2023-004054

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information. Not applicable.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors NM and JH wrote the first draft of the paper as well as reviewing and editing further drafts. AN reviewed and edited manuscript. CC conceptualised and oversaw the writing of this paper. NM is the guarantor .

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally reviewed by David Bennett, Oxford, UK and Andrew Marshall, Liverpool, UK.