Maybe there is real utility for a review of systems

Asadi-Pooya AA, Rabiei AH, Tinker J, Tracy J. Review of systems questionnaire helps differentiate psychogenic nonepileptic seizures from epilepsy. J Clin Neurosci. 2016 Dec;34:105-107.

Abstract

We investigated the utility of a very brief review of system (ROS) questionnaire in differentiating psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) from epilepsy. In this retrospective study, we investigated all patients with PNES admitted to Jefferson Comprehensive Epilepsy Center from October 2013 through April 2015. Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of PNES or epilepsy based on video-EEG monitoring were included. These were matched with respect to age and sex. All patients had a brief ROS questionnaire in their electronic charts. The questionnaire included 10 general yes/no questions about the presence or absence of any abnormality in body systems. Thirty patients with PNES and 30 patients with epilepsy were investigated. The mean of ROS responses for the presence of any abnormality (±standard deviation) for the PNES group was 2.43 (±1.33) and for the epilepsy group was 1.50 (±0.94) (p=0.01). Cut-off point of three positive ROS was able to differentiate these two conditions from each another (p=0.01; OR: 6, 95% confidence interval: 1.48-24.29). Presence of multiple complaints in the ROS questionnaire argues in favor of PNES compared with epilepsy. This brief and easy to apply ROS questionnaire may be used as a valuable ancillary tool to differentiate PNES from epilepsy during the initial screening visit. This may help prevent the delay in making the diagnosis.

Robles L, Chiang S, Haneef Z. Review-of-systems questionnaire as a predictive

tool for psychogenic nonepileptic seizures. Epilepsy Behav. 2015 Apr;45:151-4.

Abstract

Patients with refractory epilepsy undergo video-electroencephalography for seizure characterization, among whom approximately 10-30% will be discharged with the diagnosis of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNESs). Clinical PNES predictors have been described but in general are not sensitive or specific. We evaluated whether multiple complaints in a routine review-of-system (ROS) questionnaire could serve as a sensitive and specific marker of PNESs. We performed a retrospective analysis of a standardized ROS questionnaire completed by patients with definite PNESs and epileptic seizures (ESs) diagnosed in our adult epilepsy monitoring unit. A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to determine whether groups with PNES and ES differed with respect to the percentage of complaints in the ROS questionnaire. Tenfold cross-validation was used to evaluate the predictive error of a logistic regression classifier for PNES status based on the percentage of positive complaints in the ROS questionnaire. A total of 44 patients were included for analysis. Patients with PNESs had a significantly higher number of complaints in the ROS questionnaire compared to patients with epilepsy. A threshold of 17% positive complaints achieved a 78% specificity and 85% sensitivity for discriminating between PNESs and ESs. We conclude that the routine ROS questionnaire may be a sensitive and specific predictive tool for discriminating between PNESs and ESs.