Can be sphincter electromyography reference values shared between laboratories?

Simon Podnar, William (Tom) Gregory

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1387-1392
Number of pages6
JournalNeurourology and Urodynamics
Volume29
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2010

Fingerprint

Electromyography
Reference Values
Research Personnel
Confidence Intervals
Information Dissemination
Anal Canal
Muscles
Control Groups

Keywords

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Urology

Cite this

Can be sphincter electromyography reference values shared between laboratories? / Podnar, Simon; Gregory, William (Tom).

In: Neurourology and Urodynamics, Vol. 29, No. 8, 11.2010, p. 1387-1392.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8ff68cdd443a4c8bb8732e32d414fe95,
title = "Can be sphincter electromyography reference values shared between laboratories?",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "anal sphincter muscle, neuropathic lesion, reproducibility, sacral nerves, sensitivity",
author = "Simon Podnar and Gregory, {William (Tom)}",
year = "2010",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1002/nau.20893",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "1387--1392",
journal = "Neurourology and Urodynamics",
issn = "0733-2467",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Can be sphincter electromyography reference values shared between laboratories?

AU - Podnar, Simon

AU - Gregory, William (Tom)

PY - 2010/11

Y1 - 2010/11

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - anal sphincter muscle

KW - neuropathic lesion

KW - reproducibility

KW - sacral nerves

KW - sensitivity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78349247493&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78349247493&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/nau.20893

DO - 10.1002/nau.20893

M3 - Article

C2 - 20976812

AN - SCOPUS:78349247493

VL - 29

SP - 1387

EP - 1392

JO - Neurourology and Urodynamics

JF - Neurourology and Urodynamics

SN - 0733-2467

IS - 8

ER -