Advances in Neurology and Neurosciences (ANNS)

Open Access Journal

Frequency: Bi-Annual

ISSN 2631-1550

Volume : 0

Editorial

Patient-based neurology - the significance of medical history and clinical examination

Daniel-Marius Ispas

Junior Neurologist, Romania

Received: December 13, 2017 | Published:December 14, 2017

Correspondence:Daniel-Marius Ispas, Junior Neurologist MD, Nosocomial Infections MSc Fagaras, Brasov County, Romania, Europe, Tel +40724398285, Email danielmarius2009@yahoo.fr, danniyyel25@gmail.com

Copyright© 2017 Ispas. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Editorial

Dear Colleagues,

We all have the impact of the novel techniques in exploring neurological cases: laboratory (genetics as well), EEG (Holter-EEG being very useful), ultrasound in neurovascular cases, EMG and ENG with the criteria for PNS diseases, CT (and CTA), MRI (and MRA) and many others.

But we must put the base in our daily work in returning to the case history, clinical exam (general exam and neurological exam), building a positive clinical diagnosis of a neurological syndrome; after that, we should appreciate the neurocollaboration for making a differential diagnosis in neurology – I think that this is the most important aspect of our profession, because it is something very important for the patient firstly, but it is costly effective for medical system secondly. We should look more carefully in assessing a neuropatient and to discover the real hiding disease most of our colleagues (non-neurologists and some neurologists unfortunately) do not see it very well or they do not see it at all; one of the reason is because most of our daily works are about atypical diseases, they do not look like in our faculty books, they have some pecularities and we can say that every patient is an open (or closed) book – we must read it for understanding it.

So, I emphasize the relevance of our clinical points of view in making an accurate clinical diagnosis. We should take care about all the comorbidities and the drugs of our patient and to discuss neurological characteristics of general / specific diseases and med interactions, having the desire to look at the patient as a whole, not like as having to deal with some organs affected (e.g.: brain, spinal cord, muscles etc.) and that is all.

Finally, I want to be one of the promotor of the neurocontroversies in our field (different minds having various professional opinions, but all together building up an accurate diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm). We should discuss each clinical point of view (even if it is only hypothetical) regarding the diagnosis and having some scenarios with the workup and the management of a case: the more, the better and the more applicable in practice, the easier it is.

Let`s make a collaborative neuroresearch in our team!

I can contribute with the professional help in discussing neurological case reports with clinical and practical impact.