XXXX biting in the diagnosis of @entity410 .

@entity1 @entity410 @entity5773 @entity1163 @entity909 @entity302
BACKGROUND: @entity410 are rarely witnessed by physicians, and the diagnosis is usually made on the basis of the history. Tongue biting is classically considered to favor a diagnosis of @entity302 . The usefulness of tongue biting in the differential diagnosis of @entity410 was evaluated. METHODS: A prospective study of the presence of oral lacerations in 106 consecutive @entity1 admitted to our Epilepsy Monitoring Unit and a retrospective study of a population of 45 @entity1 with @entity1163 were performed. The relationship between tongue biting and diagnosis ( @entity302 vs nonepileptic events) was analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 106 monitored @entity1 , 63 had episodes characterized by bilateral motor activity, @entity909 , or both; 34 @entity1 had @entity302 , while 29 @entity1 had exclusively nonepileptic episodes. Eight @entity1 suffered an oral laceration; all involved the side of the tongue, and all had documented @entity302 . Of the 45 @entity1 with @entity1163 , in only one was the tongue lacerated, and this was at the tip. Tongue biting had a sensitivity of 24% and a specificity of 99% for the diagnosis of generalized @entity410 . @entity5773 was 100% specific to grand @entity410 . CONCLUSION: Tongue biting, particularly if it is lateral, is highly specific to generalized @entity410 .
