View Item 

Show simple item record

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

dc.contributor.authorDyck, Peter J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorAlbers, James W.en_US
dc.contributor.authorWolfe, Jamesen_US
dc.contributor.authorBolton, Charles F.en_US
dc.contributor.authorWalsh, Nancyen_US
dc.contributor.authorKlein, Christopher J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorZafft, Andrew J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRussell, James W.en_US
dc.contributor.authorThomas, Karenen_US
dc.contributor.authorDavies, Jenny L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorCarter, Rickey E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMelton, L. Josephen_US
dc.contributor.authorLitchy, William J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-09-04T17:18:43Z
dc.date.available2014-10-06T19:17:42Zen_US
dc.date.issued2013-09en_US
dc.identifier.citationDyck, 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, L. Joseph; Litchy, William J. (2013). "A trial of proficiency of nerve conduction: Greater standardization still needed." Muscle & Nerve 48(3): 369-374. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/99688>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0148-639Xen_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-4598en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/99688
dc.description.abstractIntroduction 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, 2013en_US
dc.publisherW.B. Saundersen_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.otherClinical Trialen_US
dc.subject.otherDiabetic Sensorimotor Polyneuropathyen_US
dc.subject.otherNerve Conductionen_US
dc.subject.otherProficiencyen_US
dc.subject.otherStandard Reference Valueen_US
dc.titleA trial of proficiency of nerve conduction: Greater standardization still neededen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelNeurosciencesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.pmid23861198en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/99688/1/mus23765.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/mus.23765en_US
dc.identifier.sourceMuscle & Nerveen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceApfel SC, Schwartz S, Adornato BT, Freeman R, Biton V, Rendell M, et al. Efficacy and safety of recombinant human nerve growth factor in patients with diabetic polyneuropathy. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2000; 284: 2215 – 2221.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceReport and recommendations of the San Antonio Conference on Diabetic Neuropathy. Neurology 1988; 38: 1161 – 1165.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDiabetic polyneuropathy in controlled clinical trials: consensus report of the Peripheral Nerve Society. Ann Neurol 1995; 38: 478 – 482.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEngland JD, Gronseth GS, Franklin G, Miller RG, Asbury AK, Carter GT, et al. Distal symmetric polyneuropathy: a definition for clinical research. Report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Neurology 2005; 64: 199 – 207.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTesfaye S, Boulton AJ, Dyck PJ, Freeman R, Horowitz M, Kempler P, et al. Diabetic neuropathies: update on definitions, diagnostic criteria, estimation of severity, and treatments. Diabetes Care 2010; 33: 2285 – 2293.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDyck PJ, Hughes RAC, O'Brien PC. Quantitating overall neuropathic symptoms, impairments, and outcomes. In: Dyck PJ, Thomas PK, editors. Peripheral neuropathy, 4th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2005. p 1031 – 1052.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChaudhry V, Cornblath DR, Mellitis ED, Avila O, Freimer ML, Glass JD, et al. Inter‐ and intra‐examiner reliability of nerve conduction measurements in normal subjects. Ann Neurol 1991; 30: 841 – 843.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLambert EH, Dyck PJ. Compound action potentials of sural nerve in vitro in peripheral neuropathy. In: Dyck PJ, Thomas PK, editors. Peripheral neuropathy, 4th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2005. p 1015 – 1028.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHodes R, Larrabee MG, German W. The human electromyogram in response to nerve stimulation and the conduction velocity of motor axons. Arch Neurol Psychiatry 1948; 60: 340 – 365.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDawson GD. The relative excitability and conduction velocity of sensory and motor nerve fibres in man. J Physiol 1956; 131: 436 – 451.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLambert EH. Electromyography and electric stimulation of peripheral nerves and muscles. In: Clinical examinations in neurology. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1956. p 287 – 317.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKimura J. Nerve conduction and needle electromyography. In: Dyck PJ, Thomas PK, editors. Peripheral neuropathy, 4th ed. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2005. p 899 – 970.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDyck PJ, Kratz KM, Karnes JL, Litchy WJ, Klein R, Pach JM, et al. The prevalence by staged severity of various types of diabetic neuropathy, retinopathy, and nephropathy in a population‐based cohort: the Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study. Neurology 1993; 43: 817 – 824.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDyck PJ, Davies JL, Clark VM, Litchy WJ, Klein CJ, Rizza RA, et al. Modeling chronic glycemic exposure variables as correlates and predictors of microvascular complications of diabetes. Diabetes Care 2006; 29: 2282 – 2288.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDyck PJ, Norell JE, Tritschler H, Schuette K, Samigullin R, Ziegler D, et al. Challenges in design of multicenter trials: end points assessed longitudinally for change and monotonicity. Diabetes Care 2007; 30: 2619 – 2625.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZiegler D, Low PA, Litchy WJ, Boulton AJ, Vinik AI, Freeman R, et al. Efficacy and safety of antioxidant treatment with α‐lipoic acid over 4 years in diabetic polyneuropathy: the NATHAN 1 trial. Diabetes Care 2011; 34: 2054 – 2060.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLlewelyn JG, Tomlinson DR, Thomas PK. Diabetic neuropathies. In: Dyck PJ, Thomas PK, editors. Peripheral neuropathy, 4th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2005. p 1951 – 1992.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKohara N, Kimura J, Kaji R, Goto Y, Ishii J, Takiguchi M, et al. F‐wave latency serves as the most reproducible measure in nerve conduction studies of diabetic polyneuropathy: multicentre analysis in healthy subjects and patients with diabetic polyneuropathy. Diabetologia 2000; 43: 915 – 921.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNasseri K, Strijers RL, Dekhuijzen LS, Buster M, Bertelsmann FW. Reproducibility of different methods for diagnosing and monitoring diabetic neuropathy. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1998; 38: 295 – 299.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHusstedt IW, Evers S, Grotemeyer KH. Reproducibility of different nerve conduction velocity measurements in healthy test subjects and patients suffering from diabetic polyneuropathy. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1997; 37: 359 – 363.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChaudhry V, Corse AM, Cornblath DR, Kuncl RM, Freimer ML, Griffin JW. Multifocal motor neuropathy: electrodiagnostic features. Muscle Nerve 1994; 17: 198 – 205.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDyck PJ, Overland CJ, Low PA, Litchy WJ, Davies JL, Dyck PJB, et al. Signs and symptoms versus nerve conduction studies to diagnose diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy: Cl vs. NPhys Trial. Muscle Nerve 2010; 42: 157 – 164.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceValensi P, Attali JR, Gagant S. Reproducibility of parameters for assessment of diabetic neuropathy. Diabetic Med 1993; 10: 933 – 939.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBleasel AF, Tuck RR. Variability of repeated nerve conduction studies. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1991; 81: 417 – 420.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcQuillen MP, Gorin FJ. Serial ulnar nerve conduction velocity measurements in normal subjects. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1969; 32: 144 – 148.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDyck PJ, Carter RE, Litchy WJ. Modeling nerve conduction criteria for diagnosis of diabetic polyneuropathy. Muscle Nerve 2011; 44: 340 – 345.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDyck PJ, O'Brien PC, Litchy WJ, Harper CM, Daube JR, Dyck PJB. Use of percentiles and normal deviates to express nerve conduction and other test abnormalities. Muscle Nerve 2001; 24: 307 – 310.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceO'Brien PC, Dyck PJ. Procedures for setting normal values. Neurology 1995; 45: 17 – 23.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDyck PJ, Litchy WJ, Lehman KA, Hokanson JL, Low PA, O'Brien PC. Variables influencing neuropathic endpoints: the Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study of healthy subjects (RDNS‐HS). Neurology 1995; 45: 1115 – 1121.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDyck PJ, Overland CJ, Low PA, Litchy WJ, Davies JL, Dyck PJB, et al. “Unequivocally abnormal” vs. “usual” signs and symptoms for proficient diagnosis of diabetic polyneuropathy. Arch Neurol 2012; 69: 1609 – 1614.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
mus23765.pdf
Size:
140.0KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.