[baba222]

Fought for skin biopsy and I am in the club. Does .81 mean it is really bad, or just bad?

So, guess it is NOT central sensitization.

Trying to not be so sad, but know that now I have to fight for more tests.

If it was this hard just to get SFN, it may be too late for any meaningful testing and I have made several doctors mad and three wrong at the place I am going.

I hope to get a NeuroMuscular doctor that will help me before he focuses on his connections with his colleagues. Guess that is a pipe dream too.

Thank you for reading.

[glenntaj]

On what scale? Is that included in the report?

Usually, these reports indicate the average number of small fibers found per cubic millimeter of skin as compared to age-matched control norms, and often will indicate the condition of those found. If they found, on average, .81 fibers per cubic millimeter of skin, yes, that is a low number--though lower comparatively at the thigh than at the ankle.

[en bloc]

There should be a lot more information on the report then .81. As Glenn said, you need scale, and condition of fibers.

[baba222]

Originally Posted by glenntaj

On what scale? Is that included in the report?

Usually, these reports indicate the average number of small fibers found per cubic millimeter of skin as compared to age-matched control norms, and often will indicate the condition of those found. If they found, on average, .81 fibers per cubic millimeter of skin, yes, that is a low number--though lower comparatively at the thigh than at the ankle.

Thank you for the questions.

Only had that value told to me out of 5.0 by the lab. Can't get the final result for a while due to record release issues. Specimen was from distal leg four inches above ankle. "Skin with significantly reduced epidermal nerve fiber density consistent with SFN."