Gwyn N Lewis1, Nada Signal2, Denise Taylor2. 1. Health and Rehabilitation Research Institute, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand. Electronic address: gwyn.lewis@aut.ac.nz. 2. Health and Rehabilitation Research Institute, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the intra- and inter-session reliability of motor evoked potential (MEP) size parameters in the lower limb of patients with stroke, focussing on the number of MEPs collected and the method of measuring MEP size. METHODS: Transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to elicit MEPs in the soleus muscle of patients with stroke (n=13) and age-matched healthy participants (n=13) during low level muscle activation. Two sets of 10 responses were collected in the first session and a further 10 responses collected in a second session held 7 days later. Four MEP size measurements were made using 4, 6, 8, or all 10 of the MEPs collected. Intra- and inter-session reliability was examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and typical percentage error. RESULTS: Intrasession ICC statistics using 6 or more MEPs were >0.85 in the stroke group but intersession values were all <0.5. Reliability was best when measuring parameters from individual MEPs rather than averaged responses. CONCLUSIONS: Reliability of intrasession MEP size is excellent in the lower limb of patients with stroke using as few as 6 MEPs but intersession reliability is poor. SIGNIFICANCE: Comparing MEP size measures across two or more sessions is questionable in the lower limb of patients with stroke.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the intra- and inter-session reliability of motor evoked potential (MEP) size parameters in the lower limb of patients with stroke, focussing on the number of MEPs collected and the method of measuring MEP size. METHODS: Transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to elicit MEPs in the soleus muscle of patients with stroke (n=13) and age-matched healthy participants (n=13) during low level muscle activation. Two sets of 10 responses were collected in the first session and a further 10 responses collected in a second session held 7 days later. Four MEP size measurements were made using 4, 6, 8, or all 10 of the MEPs collected. Intra- and inter-session reliability was examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and typical percentage error. RESULTS: Intrasession ICC statistics using 6 or more MEPs were >0.85 in the stroke group but intersession values were all <0.5. Reliability was best when measuring parameters from individual MEPs rather than averaged responses. CONCLUSIONS: Reliability of intrasession MEP size is excellent in the lower limb of patients with stroke using as few as 6 MEPs but intersession reliability is poor. SIGNIFICANCE: Comparing MEP size measures across two or more sessions is questionable in the lower limb of patients with stroke.
Authors: Charalambos C Charalambous; Jesse C Dean; DeAnna L Adkins; Colleen A Hanlon; Mark G Bowden Journal: J Electromyogr Kinesiol Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 2.368
Authors: Shahid Bashir; Woo-Kyoung Yoo; Hyoung Seop Kim; Hyun Sun Lim; Alexander Rotenberg; Abdullah Abu Jamea Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Walter Troni; Federica Melillo; Antonio Bertolotto; Simona Malucchi; Marco Capobianco; Francesca Sperli; Alessia Di Sapio Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 3.240