Inter-practitioner comparisons of nerve conduction studies with standardized techniques in normal subjects: Reap as you sow

• Published in: Medicine (Baltimore) Vol. 99; no. 17; p. e19558
• Main Authors: Zhao, Bing, Diao, Hong-Mei, Wen, Qing-Xian, Sui, Ke-Xv, Zhang, Yong-Qing
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc 01.04.2020; Wolters Kluwer Health
• Subjects: Action Potentials; Adult; Age Factors; Body Weights and Measures; Female; Humans; Male; Median Nerve - physiology; Middle Aged; Neural Conduction - physiology; Neurologic Examination - methods; Peroneal Nerve - physiology; Practice Patterns, Physicians; Quality Improvement Study; Sex Factors; Tibial Nerve - physiology; Ulnar Nerve - physiology; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0025-7974; 1536-5964; 1536-5964
• DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019558

This 2-group study was carried out to determine the inter-practitioner difference of nerve conduction studies with standardized techniques.56 normal subjects of 19 to 49 year-old were recruited, 29, and 27 in the 2 labs respectively. Tests were carried out unilaterally on: 5 motor nerve distal latency, conduction velocities (MNCV) and minimum latency of F wave, 3 sensory nerves with negative amplitude, onset, and peak distal latency, sensory nerve distal latency.T-test disclosed 4(15.4%) attributes with statistical significance (P < .05). They were 2 of 4 (50%) compound motor action potentials, which were ulnar and tibial nerve, and 2 of 6 (33.3%) MNCVs, which were elbow-to-wrist MNCV of median nerve and cross-fibula MNCV of peroneal nerve. No differences were disclosed in motor nerve distal latencys, minimum latency of F waves and all sensory attributes.Inconsistency pattern of certain attributes were found. This could be explained with the insufficient definition of related techniques.