M M Jan1, M Schwartz, T J Benstead. 1. Division of Neurology, Dalhousie University Medical School, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electromyography (EMG) is a useful test, but unfortunately also painful. We frequently encounter patients who worry about its painful nature, but tolerate it very well. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated anxiety levels of patients referred for EMG to explore the possible correlating and contributing factors to high anxiety. METHODS: A structured questionnaire, including the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory was completed by patients immediately before EMG testing. Emergency, hospitalized, and seriously ill patients were excluded. RESULTS: Seventy-nine cases with ages ranging from 19-72 years (mean 43) were included. Thirty-five (44%) patients had a high pre-test anxiety level. The likelihood of high anxiety was increased if the patient was worried about the test (p < 0.001) or about other issues unrelated to the test or underlying diagnosis (p < 0.001), or was taking an anti-psychotic or anxiolytic drug (p = 0.008). The degree or source of knowledge regarding the test procedure, did not affect the pre-test anxiety level. CONCLUSIONS: The information about EMG testing received by patients in this group did not affect pre-test anxiety levels. The patient's expectations regarding the test did influence anxiety levels and this may reflect generalized anxiety regarding testing procedures or misinformation regarding the nature of the test, as patients in general reported a better than anticipated experience following the test.
BACKGROUND: Electromyography (EMG) is a useful test, but unfortunately also painful. We frequently encounter patients who worry about its painful nature, but tolerate it very well. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated anxiety levels of patients referred for EMG to explore the possible correlating and contributing factors to high anxiety. METHODS: A structured questionnaire, including the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory was completed by patients immediately before EMG testing. Emergency, hospitalized, and seriously ill patients were excluded. RESULTS: Seventy-nine cases with ages ranging from 19-72 years (mean 43) were included. Thirty-five (44%) patients had a high pre-test anxiety level. The likelihood of high anxiety was increased if the patient was worried about the test (p < 0.001) or about other issues unrelated to the test or underlying diagnosis (p < 0.001), or was taking an anti-psychotic or anxiolytic drug (p = 0.008). The degree or source of knowledge regarding the test procedure, did not affect the pre-test anxiety level. CONCLUSIONS: The information about EMG testing received by patients in this group did not affect pre-test anxiety levels. The patient's expectations regarding the test did influence anxiety levels and this may reflect generalized anxiety regarding testing procedures or misinformation regarding the nature of the test, as patients in general reported a better than anticipated experience following the test.
Authors: P Rieckmann; K V Toyka; C Bassetti; K Beer; S Beer; U Buettner; M Chofflon; M Götschi-Fuchs; K Hess; L Kappos; J Kesselring; N Goebels; H-P Ludin; H Mattle; M Schluep; C Vaney; U Baumhackl; T Berger; F Deisenhammer; F Fazekas; M Freimüller; H Kollegger; W Kristoferitsch; H Lassmann; H Markut; S Strasser-Fuchs; K Vass; H Altenkirch; S Bamborschke; K Baum; R Benecke; W Brück; D Dommasch; W G Elias; A Gass; W Gehlen; J Haas; G Haferkamp; F Hanefeld; H-P Hartung; C Heesen; F Heidenreich; R Heitmann; B Hemmer; T Hense; R Hohlfeld; R W C Janzen; G Japp; S Jung; E Jügelt; J Koehler; W Kölmel; N König; K Lowitzsch; U Manegold; A Melms; J Mertin; P Oschmann; H-F Petereit; M Pette; D Pöhlau; D Pohl; S Poser; M Sailer; S Schmidt; G Schock; M Schulz; S Schwarz; D Seidel; N Sommer; M Stangel; E Stark; A Steinbrecher; H Tumani; R Voltz; F Weber; W Weinrich; R Weissert; H Wiendl; H Wiethölter; U Wildemann; U K Zettl; F Zipp; R Zschenderlein; G Izquierdo; A Kirjazovas; L Packauskas; D Miller; B Koncan Vracko; A Millers; A Orologas; M Panellus; C J M Sindic; M Bratic; A Svraka; N R Vella; Z Stelmasiak; K Selmaj; H Bartosik-Psujik; K Mitosek-Szewczyk; E Belniak; A Mochecka; A Bayas; A Chan; P Flachenecker; R Gold; B Kallmann; V Leussink; M Mäurer; K Ruprecht; G Stoll; F X Weilbach Journal: J Neurol Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Courtney McIlduff; Sung Yim; Adam Pacheck; Tom Geisbush; Aleksandar Mijailovic; Seward B Rutkove Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: J W Albers; D H Garabrant; S J Schweitzer; R P Garrison; R J Richardson; S Berent Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: C E McIlduff; M G Martucci; C Shin; K Qi; A K Pacheck; H Gutierrez; M Mortreux; S B Rutkove Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 3.708