You are here

Responses

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Review
Progressive supranuclear palsy: diagnosis and management
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 17 November 2021
    Response to article by Rowe et al

    To the editor

    Although Rowe and colleagues make it clear that the most important purpose of their review is to cover the neglected aspect of management of Progressive Supranuclear Palsy (1) they also describe the disorder’s clinical symptoms and signs and its differential diagnosis in some detail. In this section of the article they fail to mention two simple bedside tests which I have found particularly useful over the years in making me more certain about my diagnosis. In those patients where Parkinson’s disease is the main differential diagnosis sequential finger tapping for 20 seconds is frequently informative. A progressive reduction in speed and amplitude ( ‘the sequence effect’) is a sine qua non for Parkinson’s disease but is rarely found in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy where marked reduction in amplitude of finger taps without decrement and preserved speed of movement is much more usual (2). Utilisation and imitation behaviour (3, 4) and the applause sign (5), all indicative of prefrontal lobe dysfunction, are very common in fully established Richardson’s syndrome but I have also found them to be sometimes present early on particularly when abulia or behavioural abnormalities are presenting complaints. The grasp reflex on the other hand is not commonly observed
    The diagnosis of Progressive Supranuclear Palsy is difficult and uncertainty is common particularly in the early stages. To retract a diagnosis of Progressive Supranuclear Palsy is tri...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on: 13 October 2021
    Response to Response by A Lees
    • James Rowe, Dr University of Cambridge
    • Other Contributors:
      • Tim Rittman, Dr
      • Negin Holland, Dr

    To the Editor,

    We agree with Andrew Lees on the value of the applause sign (i.e. ask a PSP patient to clap 3 times, and they typically perseverative by clapping more than 3 times) and a lack of decrement on hypokinesia tests (e.g. sequential finger tapping or in micrographic writing, without a progressive reduction in amplitude) to differentiate Progressive Supranuclear Palsy from Parkinson’s disease. Both are very useful, easy bedside tests.

    We also agree that there are cases where one is unsure. A diagnosis of Progressive Supranuclear Palsy is not to be given lightly, as for any other disease. But, patients with Progressive Supranuclear Palsy have suffered disproportionately from delays and diagnostic hesitation, often long past any reasonable doubt. It does not help a patient or family to live with a wrong diagnosis, or no diagnosis, for a large part of their illness. Across many countries, the diagnosis of PSP is made at around three years from symptom onset (Murley et al, 2021; Cosseddu et al 2017; Mamarabadi et al, 2018). In other words, halfway from onset to death. This is unnecessarily long. Greater awareness and simple clinical skills can reduce the diagnostic delay by more than a year (Mamarabadi et al, 2018). Through our article, we hope our colleagues can become more confident, early and accurate in making the diagnosis of PSP as a gateway to better care.

    James Rowe, Tim Rittman and Negin Holland

    References

    Mamarabadi M, R...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.

Other content recommended for you