Peripheral neuropathy may first be considered when an individual reports symptoms of numbness, tingling, and pain in feet. After ruling out a lesion in the central nervous system as a cause, diagnosis may be made on the basis of symptoms, laboratory and additional testing, clinical history, and a detailed examination.

During physical examination, specifically a neurological examination, those with generalized peripheral neuropathies most commonly have distal sensory or motor and sensory loss, although those with a pathology (problem) of the nerves may be perfectly normal; may show proximal weakness, as in some inflammatory neuropathies, such as Guillain–Barré syndrome; or may show focal sensory disturbance or weakness, such as in mononeuropathies. Classically, ankle jerk reflex is absent in peripheral neuropathy.

A physical examination will involve testing the deep ankle reflex as well as examining the feet for any ulceration. For large fiber neuropathy, an exam will usually show an abnormally decreased sensation to vibration, which is tested with a 128-Hz tuning fork, and decreased sensation of light touch when touched by a nylon monofilament.

Diagnostic tests include electromyography (EMG) and nerve conduction studies (NCSs), which assess large myelinated nerve fibers. Testing for small-fiber peripheral neuropathies often relates to the autonomic nervous system function of small thinly- and unmyelinated fibers. These tests include a sweat test and a tilt table test. Diagnosis of small fiber involvement in peripheral neuropathy may also involve a skin biopsy in which a 3 mm-thick section of skin is removed from the calf by a punch biopsy, and is used to measure the skin intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD), the density of nerves in the outer layer of the skin. Reduced density of the small nerves in the epidermis supports a diagnosis of small-fiber peripheral neuropathy.

Laboratory tests include blood tests for vitamin B-12 levels, a complete blood count, measurement of thyroid stimulating hormone levels, a comprehensive metabolic panel screening for diabetes and pre-diabetes, and a serum immunofixation test, which tests for antibodies in the blood.

The treatment of peripheral neuropathy varies based on the cause of the condition, and treating the underlying condition can aid in the management of neuropathy. When peripheral neuropathy results from diabetes mellitus or prediabetes, blood sugar management is key to treatment. In prediabetes in particular, strict blood sugar control can significantly alter the course of neuropathy. In peripheral neuropathy that stems from immune-mediated diseases, the underlying condition is treated with intravenous immunoglobulin or steroids. When peripheral neuropathy results from vitamin deficiencies or other disorders, those are treated as well.

Bell's palsy is a diagnosis of exclusion, meaning it is diagnosed by elimination of other reasonable possibilities. By definition, no specific cause can be determined. There are no routine lab or imaging tests required to make the diagnosis. The degree of nerve damage can be assessed using the House-Brackmann score.

One study found that 45% of patients are not referred to a specialist, which suggests that Bell’s palsy is considered by physicians to be a straightforward diagnosis that is easy to manage.

Other conditions that can cause similar symptoms include: herpes zoster, Lyme disease, sarcoidosis, stroke, and brain tumors.

The symptoms and signs depend on which nerve is affected, where along its length the nerve is affected, and how severely the nerve is affected. Positive sensory symptoms are usually the earliest to occur, particularly tingling and neuropathic pain, followed or accompanied by reduced sensation or complete numbness. Muscle weakness is usually noticed later, and is often associated with muscle atrophy.

A compression neuropathy can usually be diagnosed confidently on the basis of the symptoms and signs alone. However, nerve conduction studies are helpful in confirming the diagnosis, quantifying the severity, and ruling out involvement of other nerves (suggesting a mononeuritis multiplex or polyneuropathy). A scan is not usually necessary, but may be helpful if a tumour or other local compressive lesion is suspected.Nerve injury, as a mononeuropathy, may cause similar symptoms to compression neuropathy. This may occasionally cause diagnostic confusion, particularly if the patient does not remember the injury and there are no obvious physical signs to suggest it.The symptoms and signs of each particular syndrome are discussed on the relevant pages, listed below.

When an underlying medical condition is causing the neuropathy, treatment should first be directed at this condition. For example, if weight gain is the underlying cause, then a weight loss program is the most appropriate treatment. Compression neuropathy occurring in pregnancy often resolves after delivery, so no specific treatment is usually required. Some compression neuropathies are amenable to surgery: carpal tunnel syndrome and cubital tunnel syndrome are two common examples. Whether or not it is appropriate to offer surgery in any particular case depends on the severity of the symptoms, the risks of the proposed operation, and the prognosis if untreated. After surgery, the symptoms may resolve completely, but if the compression was sufficiently severe or prolonged then the nerve may not recover fully and some symptoms may persist. Drug treatment may be useful for an underlying condition (including peripheral oedema), or for ameliorating neuropathic pain.

Steroids have been shown to be effective at improving recovery in Bell's palsy while antivirals have not. In those who are unable to close their eyes, eye protective measures are required.

MRI is the most sensitive imaging technique that can be used for diagnosing NBD. As for the parenchymal NBD, medical doctors mainly monitor the upper brainstem lesion. In fact, it is possible that lesions extends to thalamus and basal ganglia. Another advantage of using MRI is the ability to perform Diffusion-weighted imaging, or diffusion MRI. This technique is the most sensitive tool to image an acute infarct. In the case of NBD, Diffusion MRI can determine whether the lesion were due to cerebral infarction. In other words, it can distinguish NBD from non-NBD neural disease. When only spinal cord is affected by NBD, brain looks perfectly normal when scanned by MRI. Therefore, it is necessary to scan the spinal cord as well when diagnosing possible NBD involvement. As for the non-parenchymal NBD, venous sinus thrombosis can be detected.

Shingles can be confused with herpes simplex, dermatitis herpetiformis and impetigo, and skin reactions caused by contact dermatitis, candidiasis, certain drugs and insect bites.

"...Despite its rarity, the patient's ethnic background and the typical radiographic findings should prompt the clinicians to include NBD in the differential diagnosis of optic neuritis and demyelinating disease in the young..."[5]. This quote indicates that even common symptoms such as headache should be recognized as the sign for possible NBD considering the patient's ethnic background.

Diagnosis starts by examining the patient's symptoms. Symptoms can vary. Symptoms can include headache, sensitivity to light, neck stiffness, nausea, and vomiting. In some patients, fever is absent. Neurological examination and MRI can be normal.

Mollaret's meningitis is suspected based on symptoms, and can be confirmed by HSV 1 or HSV 2 on PCR of Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), although not all cases test positive on PCR. PCR is performed on spinal fluid or blood, however, the viruses do not need to enter the spinal fluid or blood to spread within the body: they can spread by moving through the axons and dendrites of the nerves.

During the first 24 h of the disease the spinal fluid will show predominant polymorphonuclear neutrophils and large cells that have been called endothelial (Mollaret’s) cells.

A study performed on patients who had diffuse symptoms, such as persistent or intermittent headaches, concluded that although PCR is a highly sensitive method for detection, it may not always be sensitive enough for identification of viral DNA in CSF, due to the fact that viral shedding from latent infection may be very low. The concentration of viruses in CSF during subclinical infection might be very low.

Investigations include blood tests (electrolytes, liver and kidney function, inflammatory markers and a complete blood count) and usually X-ray examination of the chest. The most important test in identifying or ruling out meningitis is analysis of the cerebrospinal fluid (fluid that envelops the brain and the spinal cord) through lumbar puncture (LP). However, if the patient is at risk for a cerebral mass lesion or elevated intracranial pressure (recent head injury, a known immune system problem, localizing neurological signs, or evidence on examination of a raised ICP), a lumbar puncture may be contraindicated because of the possibility of fatal brain herniation. In such cases, a CT or MRI scan is generally performed prior to the lumbar puncture to exclude this possibility. Otherwise, the CT or MRI should be performed after the LP, with MRI preferred over CT due to its superiority in demonstrating areas of cerebral edema, ischemia, and meningeal inflammation.

During the lumbar puncture procedure, the opening pressure is measured. A pressure of over 180 mm HO is suggestive of bacterial meningitis.

It is likely that Mollaret meningitis is underrecognized by physicians, and improved recognition may limit unwarranted antibiotic use and shorten or eliminate unnecessary hospital admission.

PCR testing has advanced the state of the art in research, but PCR can be negative in individuals with Mollaret's, even during episodes with severe symptoms. For example, Kojima et al. published a case study for an individual who was hospitalized repeatedly, and who had clinical symptoms including genital herpes lesions. However, the patient was sometimes negative for HSV-2 by PCR, even though his meningitis symptoms were severe. Treatment with acyclovir was successful, indicating that a herpes virus was the cause of his symptoms.

A specific clinical diagnosis of HSV as the cause of dendritic keratitis can usually be made by ophthalmologists and optometrists based on the presence of characteristic clinical features. Diagnostic testing is seldom needed because of its classic clinical features and is not useful in stromal keratitis as there is usually no live virus. Laboratory tests are indicated in complicated cases when the clinical diagnosis is uncertain and in all cases of suspected neonatal herpes infection:

- Corneal smears or impression cytology specimens can be analyzed by culture, antigen detection, or fluorescent antibody testing. Tzanck smear, i.e.Papanicolaou staining of corneal smears, show multinucleated giant cells and intranuclear inclusion bodies, however, the test is low in sensitivity and specificity.

- DNA testing is rapid, sensitive and specific. However, its high cost limits its use to research centers.

- Demonstration of HSV is possible with viral culture.

- Serologic tests may show a rising antibody titer during primary infection but are of no diagnostic assistance during recurrent episodes.

Treatment of herpes of the eye is different based on its presentation: epithelial keratitis is caused by live virus while stromal disease is an immune response and metaherpetic ulcer results from inability of the corneal epithelium to heal:

The diagnosis of limbic encephalitis is extremely difficult and it is usual for the diagnosis to be delayed for weeks. The key diagnostic test (detection of specific auto-antibodies in cerebrospinal fluid) is not routinely offered by most immunology laboratories. Some of the rarer auto-antibodies (e.g., NMDAR) have no commercially available assay and can only be measured by a very small number of research laboratories worldwide, further delaying diagnosis by weeks or months. Most patients with limbic encephalitis are initially diagnosed with herpes simplex encephalitis, because the two syndromes cannot be distinguished clinically. HHV-6 (human herpes virus 6) encephalitis is also clinically indistinguishable from limbic encephalitis.

There are two sets of diagnostic criteria used. The oldest are those proposed by Gultekin "et al." in 2000.

A revised set of criteria were proposed by Graus and Saiz in 2005.

The main distinction between the two sets of criteria is whether or not the detection of a paraneoplastic antibody is needed for diagnosis.

If the rash has appeared, identifying this disease (making a differential diagnosis) requires only a visual examination, since very few diseases produce a rash in a dermatomal pattern (see map). However, herpes simplex virus (HSV) can occasionally produce a rash in such a pattern (zosteriform herpes simplex). The Tzanck smear is helpful for diagnosing acute infection with a herpes virus, but does not distinguish between HSV and VZV.

When the rash is absent (early or late in the disease, or in the case of zoster sine herpete), shingles can be difficult to diagnose. Apart from the rash, most symptoms can occur also in other conditions.

Laboratory tests are available to diagnose shingles. The most popular test detects VZV-specific IgM antibody in blood; this appears only during chickenpox or shingles and not while the virus is dormant. In larger laboratories, lymph collected from a blister is tested by polymerase chain reaction for VZV DNA, or examined with an electron microscope for virus particles. Molecular biology tests based on in vitro nucleic acid amplification (PCR tests) are currently considered the most reliable. Nested PCR test has high sensitivity, but is susceptible to contamination leading to false positive results. The latest real-time PCR tests are rapid, easy to perform, and as sensitive as nested PCR, and have a lower risk of contamination. They also have more sensitivity than viral cultures.

EEG: Mostly nonspecific slowing and epileptiform activity arising from temporal lobes.

Although it is a self-limited illness, oral or intravenous antiviral treatments, particularly acyclovir, have been used in the management of immunocompromised or severely infected patients. Topical acyclovir has not been shown to be effective in management of herpetic whitlow. Famciclovir has been demonstrated to effectively treat and prevent recurrent episodes. Lancing or surgically debriding the lesion may make it worse by causing a superinfection or encephalitis.

Treatment includes fluid intake, good oral hygiene and gentle debridement of the mouth, as well as oral acyclovir. In healthy individuals the lesions heal spontaneously in 7–14 days without scarring.

Herpes simplex virus is commonly found in humans, yet uncommonly results in systemic manifestations. Suppression of HIV with antiretroviral medications, careful monitoring of immunosuppressive medications are important means of prevention. Antiviral prophylaxis such as daily acyclovir in immunocompromised individuals may be considered.

CMV, VZV as well as HIV infections of the esophagus can have a similar presentation. Tissue culture is the most accurate means of distinguishing between the different viral causes. Caustic esophagitis, pill-induced esophagitis as well as yeast esophagitis can have a similar clinical presentation.

The likelihood of the infection being spread can be reduced through behaviors such as avoiding touching an active outbreak site, washing hands frequently while the outbreak is occurring, not sharing items that come in contact with the mouth, and not coming into close contact with others (by avoiding kissing, oral sex, or contact sports).

Because the onset of an infection is difficult to predict, lasts a short period of time and heals rapidly, it is difficult to conduct research on cold sores. Though famciclovir improves lesion healing time, it is not effective in preventing lesions; valaciclovir and a mixture of acyclovir and hydrocortisone are similarly useful in treating outbreaks but may also help prevent them.

Acyclovir and valacyclovir by mouth are effective in preventing recurrent herpes labialis if taken prior to the onset of any symptoms or exposure to any triggers. Evidence does not support L-lysine.

Acyclovir is the treatment of choice for Mollaret's meningitis. Some patients see a drastic difference in how often they get sick and others don't. Often treatment means managing symptoms, such as pain management and strengthening the immune system.

The IHMF recommends that patients with benign recurrent lymphocytic meningitis receive intravenous acyclovir in the amount of 10 mg/kg every 8 hours, for 14–21 days. More recently, the second-generation antiherpetic drugs valacyclovir and famciclovir have been used to successfully treat patients with Mollaret's. Additionally, it has been reported that Indomethacin administered in the amount of 25 mg 3 times per day after meals, or 50 mg every 4 hours, has resulted in a faster recovery for patients, as well as more extended symptom-free intervals, between episodes.

In this table: ANA = Antinuclear antibodies, CRP = C-reactive protein, ESR = Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate, "ds"DNA = double-stranded DNA, ENA = extractable nuclear antigens, RNP = ribonucleoproteins; VDRL = Venereal Disease Research Laboratory

Whilst usually a straightforward diagnosis at times the appearance can raise concern that the rash could be due to herpes simplex; however, the latter generally has a more clustered and vesicular appearance.

In uncertain cases, a scraping of a lesion can be taken and the fluid examined under the microscope. Herpes lesions will have a positive direct fluorescent antibody test. The fluid from erythema toxicum lesions will show many eosinophils. If blood samples are taken, they may show a high level of circulating eosinophils; however, this is not usually required.

Differential diagnosis may include Herpes simplex virus, Impetigo, neonatal sepsis, Listeria and Varicella (chicken pox).

In children the primary source of infection is the orofacial area, and it is commonly inferred that the virus (in this case commonly HSV-1) is transferred by the cutting, chewing or sucking of fingernail or thumbnail.

In adults, it is more common for the primary source to be the genital region, with a corresponding preponderance of HSV-2. It is also seen in adult health care workers such as dentists because of increased exposure to the herpes virus.

Contact sports are also a potential source of infection with herpetic whitlows.

Primary orofacial herpes is readily identified by clinical examination of persons with no previous history of lesions and contact with an individual with known HSV-1 infection. The appearance and distribution of sores in these individuals typically presents as multiple, round, superficial oral ulcers, accompanied by acute gingivitis. Adults with atypical presentation are more difficult to diagnose. Prodromal symptoms that occur before the appearance of herpetic lesions help differentiate HSV symptoms from the similar symptoms of other disorders, such as allergic stomatitis. When lesions do not appear inside the mouth, primary orofacial herpes is sometimes mistaken for impetigo, a bacterial infection. Common mouth ulcers (aphthous ulcer) also resemble intraoral herpes, but do not present a vesicular stage.

Genital herpes can be more difficult to diagnose than oral herpes, since most HSV-2-infected persons have no classical symptoms. Further confusing diagnosis, several other conditions resemble genital herpes, including fungal infection, lichen planus, atopic dermatitis, and urethritis. Laboratory testing is often used to confirm a diagnosis of genital herpes. Laboratory tests include culture of the virus, direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) studies to detect virus, skin biopsy, and polymerase chain reaction to test for presence of viral DNA. Although these procedures produce highly sensitive and specific diagnoses, their high costs and time constraints discourage their regular use in clinical practice.

Until the 1980s serological tests for antibodies to HSV were rarely useful to diagnosis and not routinely used in clinical practice. The older IgM serologic assay could not differentiate between antibodies generated in response to HSV-1 or HSV-2 infection. However, a glycoprotein G-specific (IgG) HSV test introduced in the 1980s is more than 98% specific at discriminating HSV-1 from HSV-2.

It should not be confused with conditions caused by other viruses in the "herpesviridae" family such as herpes zoster, which is caused by varicella zoster virus. The differential diagnosis includes hand, foot and mouth disease due to similar lesions on the skin.