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.
In the article “Unintended consequences of Mayo paraneoplastic evaluations,” Ebright et al. retrospectively identified 500 consecutive patients with Mayo paraneoplastic antibody testing and used chart abstraction to decide whether positive antibody results (17.4% of the sample) were true or false positives. Cases were classified as true positives if no other explanation was found, and the patient's presentation was known to be associated with the antibody, or improved clinically with treatment, or was associated with a new malignancy being identified. They concluded that 71.3% of the positive tests were false positives, with this being more common with clinical presentations that were not well established as paraneoplastic, and suggested the construction of panels targeted to specific clinical presentations while ensuring that tests are ordered in the appropriate context.
In the article “Unintended consequences of Mayo paraneoplastic evaluations,” Ebright et al. retrospectively identified 500 consecutive patients with Mayo paraneoplastic antibody testing and used chart abstraction to decide whether positive antibody results (17.4% of the sample) were true or false positives.
Footnotes
Author disclosures are available upon request (journal{at}neurology.org).
- © 2019 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
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- 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.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
