Timothy Dillingham1, Shan Chen2, Michael Andary3, Ralph Buschbacher4, David Del Toro5, Benn Smith6, Kuno Zimmermann7, Yuen So8. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Pennsylvania, 1800 Lombard Street, First Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19146, USA. 2. Department of Neurology, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA. 3. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. 4. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. 5. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 6. Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA. 7. Qinqunxx Institute, Rosharon, Texas, USA. 8. Department of Neurology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are not uniform standards for nerve conduction testing across the United States. The objective of this study is to present a set of methodologically sound criteria to evaluate the literature for the purpose of identifying high-quality normative nerve conduction studies (NCS) suitable for widespread use. METHODS: The Normative Data Task Force (NDTF) was formed to review published studies on methodological issues related to NCS. A set of criteria was then developed to evaluate the literature. These criteria and their rationale are described. RESULTS: We identified 7 key issues that reflect high quality in NCS. For each issue, specific review criteria were developed. CONCLUSION: Rigorous criteria enable identification of high-quality studies dealing with nerve conduction reference values. This represents the first step toward the overarching goal of recommending NCS techniques and reference values for electrodiagnostic medicine. Muscle Nerve 54: 366-370, 2016.
INTRODUCTION: There are not uniform standards for nerve conduction testing across the United States. The objective of this study is to present a set of methodologically sound criteria to evaluate the literature for the purpose of identifying high-quality normative nerve conduction studies (NCS) suitable for widespread use. METHODS: The Normative Data Task Force (NDTF) was formed to review published studies on methodological issues related to NCS. A set of criteria was then developed to evaluate the literature. These criteria and their rationale are described. RESULTS: We identified 7 key issues that reflect high quality in NCS. For each issue, specific review criteria were developed. CONCLUSION: Rigorous criteria enable identification of high-quality studies dealing with nerve conduction reference values. This represents the first step toward the overarching goal of recommending NCS techniques and reference values for electrodiagnostic medicine. Muscle Nerve 54: 366-370, 2016.
Authors: Roy Freeman; Jennifer S Gewandter; Catharina G Faber; Christopher Gibbons; Simon Haroutounian; Giuseppe Lauria; Todd Levine; Rayaz A Malik; J Robinson Singleton; A Gordon Smith; Josh Bell; Robert H Dworkin; Eva Feldman; David N Herrmann; Ahmet Hoke; Noah Kolb; Heikki Mansikka; Anne Louise Oaklander; Amanda Peltier; Michael Polydefkis; Elissa Ritt; James W Russell; Stephen Sainati; Deborah Steiner; Roi Treister; Nurcan Üçeyler Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-10-14 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Marta Jaskólska; Magdalena Chylińska; Anna Masiak; Katarzyna Nowicka-Sauer; Mariusz Siemiński; Marcin Ziętkiewicz; Zenobia Czuszyńska; Zbigniew Zdrojewski Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2020-03-14 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Enrique A Esteves; Sandra P Guio; Carlos A de Los Reyes-Guevara; Erika Cantor; Miguel E Habeych; Adriana L Malagón Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Pract Date: 2020-03-05