A trial of proficiency of nerve conduction: Greater standardization still needed

ABSTRACT Introduction The aim of this study was to test the proficiency (accuracy among evaluators) of measured attributes of nerve conduction (NC). Methods Expert clinical neurophysiologists, without instruction or consensus development, from 4 different medical centers, independently assessed 8 at...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inMuscle & nerve Vol. 48; no. 3; pp. 369 - 374
Main Authors Dyck, Peter J., Albers, James W., Wolfe, James, Bolton, Charles F., Walsh, Nancy, Klein, Christopher J., Zafft, Andrew J., Russell, James W., Thomas, Karen, Davies, Jenny L., Carter, Rickey E., Melton III, L. Joseph, Litchy, William J.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.09.2013
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:ABSTRACT Introduction The aim of this study was to test the proficiency (accuracy among evaluators) of measured attributes of nerve conduction (NC). Methods Expert clinical neurophysiologists, without instruction or consensus development, from 4 different medical centers, independently assessed 8 attributes of NC in 24 patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) on consecutive days. Results No significant intraobserver differences between days 1 and 2 were found, but significant interobserver differences were seen. Use of standard reference values did not correct for these observed differences. Conclusions Interobserver variability was attributed to differences in performance of NC. It was of sufficient magnitude that it is of concern for the conduct of therapeutic trials. To deal with interrater variability in therapeutic trials, the same electromyographers should perform all NC assessments of individual patients or, preferably, NC procedures should be more standardized. A further trial is needed to test whether such standardization would eliminate interobserver variability. Muscle Nerve 48: 369–374, 2013
Bibliography:ark:/67375/WNG-MTK69H9C-G
istex:EE9FA910BDC68A07556657A8D57685811AA3D706
ArticleID:MUS23765
The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
This article includes Supplementary Material available via the internet at
This study was supported by Mayo Foundation funds with grants obtained from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS36797 to P.J.D.), and by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health (R01AGO34676).
Disclosure
http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/suppmat/0148‐639X/suppmat/
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
ISSN:0148-639X
1097-4598
DOI:10.1002/mus.23765