K A Potter-Baker1, D P Janini1, F S Frost2, P Chabra1, N Varnerin1, D A Cunningham1,3, V Sankarasubramanian1, E B Plow1,2,4. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA. 2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland OH, USA. 3. School of Biomedical Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA. 4. Center for Neurological Restoration, Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Test-retest reliability analysis in individuals with chronic incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability of neurophysiological metrics acquired with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in individuals with chronic incomplete tetraplegia. SETTING: Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. METHODS: TMS metrics of corticospinal excitability, output, inhibition and motor map distribution were collected in muscles with a higher MRC grade and muscles with a lower MRC grade on the more affected side of the body. Metrics denoting upper limb function were also collected. All metrics were collected at two sessions separated by a minimum of two weeks. Reliability between sessions was determined using Spearman's correlation coefficients and concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs). RESULTS: We found that TMS metrics that were acquired in higher MRC grade muscles were approximately two times more reliable than those collected in lower MRC grade muscles. TMS metrics of motor map output, however, demonstrated poor reliability regardless of muscle choice (P=0.34; CCC=0.51). Correlation analysis indicated that patients with more baseline impairment and/or those in a more chronic phase of iSCI demonstrated greater variability of metrics. CONCLUSION: In iSCI, reliability of TMS metrics varies depending on the muscle grade of the tested muscle. Variability is also influenced by factors such as baseline motor function and time post SCI. Future studies that use TMS metrics in longitudinal study designs to understand functional recovery should be cautious as choice of muscle and clinical characteristics can influence reliability.
STUDY DESIGN: Test-retest reliability analysis in individuals with chronic incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability of neurophysiological metrics acquired with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in individuals with chronic incomplete tetraplegia. SETTING: Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. METHODS: TMS metrics of corticospinal excitability, output, inhibition and motor map distribution were collected in muscles with a higher MRC grade and muscles with a lower MRC grade on the more affected side of the body. Metrics denoting upper limb function were also collected. All metrics were collected at two sessions separated by a minimum of two weeks. Reliability between sessions was determined using Spearman's correlation coefficients and concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs). RESULTS: We found that TMS metrics that were acquired in higher MRC grade muscles were approximately two times more reliable than those collected in lower MRC grade muscles. TMS metrics of motor map output, however, demonstrated poor reliability regardless of muscle choice (P=0.34; CCC=0.51). Correlation analysis indicated that patients with more baseline impairment and/or those in a more chronic phase of iSCI demonstrated greater variability of metrics. CONCLUSION: In iSCI, reliability of TMS metrics varies depending on the muscle grade of the tested muscle. Variability is also influenced by factors such as baseline motor function and time post SCI. Future studies that use TMS metrics in longitudinal study designs to understand functional recovery should be cautious as choice of muscle and clinical characteristics can influence reliability.
Authors: H C Smith; N J Davey; G Savic; D W Maskill; P H Ellaway; M A Jamous; H L Frankel Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: J H Van der Lee; V De Groot; H Beckerman; R C Wagenaar; G J Lankhorst; L M Bouter Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Numa Dancause; Scott Barbay; Shawn B Frost; Erik J Plautz; Daofen Chen; Elena V Zoubina; Ann M Stowe; Randolph J Nudo Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2005-11-02 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Brian J Kelley; Noam Y Harel; Chang-Yeon Kim; Xenophon Papademetris; Daniel Coman; Xingxing Wang; Omar Hasan; Adam Kaufman; Ronen Globinsky; Lawrence H Staib; William B J Cafferty; Fahmeed Hyder; Stephen M Strittmatter Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: V Di Lazzaro; A Oliviero; F Pilato; E Saturno; M Dileone; P Mazzone; A Insola; P A Tonali; J C Rothwell Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: David A Cunningham; Andre Machado; Daniel Janini; Nicole Varnerin; Corin Bonnett; Guang Yue; Stephen Jones; Mark Lowe; Erik Beall; Ken Sakaie; Ela B Plow Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Michèle Hubli; John L K Kramer; Catherine R Jutzeler; Jan Rosner; Julio C Furlan; Keith E Tansey; Martin Schubert Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Kelsey A Potter-Baker; Daniel P Janini; Yin-Liang Lin; Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; David A Cunningham; Nicole M Varnerin; Patrick Chabra; Kevin L Kilgore; Mary Ann Richmond; Frederick S Frost; Ela B Plow Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2017-08-07 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Michael B Gerber; Alasdair C McLean; Samuel J Stephen; Alex G Chalco; Usman M Arshad; Gary W Thickbroom; Josh Silverstein; K Zoe Tsagaris; Amy Kuceyeski; Kathleen Friel; Taiza E G Santos; Dylan J Edwards Journal: Front Neuroinform Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 4.081
Authors: Amanda Vitória Lacerda de Araújo; Valéria Ribeiro Nogueira Barbosa; Gilma Serra Galdino; Felipe Fregni; Thais Massetti; Sara Lynn Fontes; Danilo de Oliveira Silva; Talita Dias da Silva; Carlos Bandeira de Mello Monteiro; James Tonks; Fernando Henrique Magalhães Journal: Trials Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 2.279