4.2 Article

Can be Sphincter Electromyography Reference Values Shared Between Laboratories?

期刊

NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS
卷 29, 期 8, 页码 1387-1392

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/nau.20893

关键词

anal sphincter muscle; neuropathic lesion; reproducibility; sacral nerves; sensitivity

资金

  1. Republic of Slovenia Research Agency [13 7899]
  2. National Institutes of Health [K12 HD 01243, K30 HL 04516, UL1 RR 024140]
  3. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH &HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [K12HD001243] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [UL1RR024140] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [K30HL004516] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: Sphincter electromyography (EMG) is an important method in diagnosis of neuropathic sacral lesions. Quantitative EMG analysis increases utility of the test, but requires valid reference values. Although commonly employed, validity of sharing reference data between electrodiagnostic laboratories has not been confirmed. In this study, this approach was assessed by comparing the reproducibility of data sets obtained by the same and different laboratories. Methods: Confidence intervals and sensitivity of motor unit potential (MUP) parameters in the external anal sphincter (EAS) muscles were calculated using data obtained from three different control groups of women (number of women: 41, 48, and 66), examined by the same (the first two groups) and another investigator (the third group). Sensitivities to diagnose neuropathic changes in a known patient group were compared. Results: When compared to the first reference group, the MUP parameter means of 2/7 (same investigator) versus 3/7 (different investigator) were significantly different. Similarly, 3/14 versus 4/14 MUP parameter outliers were different. Finally, 6/14 versus 7/14 sensitivities (using a combination of MUP parameter means and outliers) were different. Conclusions: This study demonstrated somewhat larger differences between confidence intervals obtained by different investigators, as compared to those obtained by a single investigator. However, most of these differences can be explained by differences in recruited groups of women, and slight inconsistencies in applied techniques. Presented data suggest that confidence intervals from other laboratories can be used, but only if exact protocols from original normative studies are strictly followed. Neurourol. Urodynam. 29:1387-1392, 2010. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据