Not so Shocking: Electromyography in Pediatrics Remains Feasible and Diagnostically Useful.

BACKGROUND: Electrodiagnostic testing, including nerve conduction studies (NCS) and electromyography (EMG), assists with localizing lesions within the peripheral nervous system. NCS/EMG in children can be technically challenging and its relevance has been questioned in the era of affordable genetic testing. NCS/EMG provides information that may not be available in the examination of a young or developmentally delayed child. Our goal was to review the volume and referral sources of NCS/EMG studies and evaluate its feasibility and diagnostic yield at a pediatric tertiary care hospital. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of NCS/EMG studies done in pediatric patients at one center from 2014 to 2019. RESULTS: A total of 725 studies were performed, with a median age of 13.2 years (range 0-18 years). The annual number of studies remained constant throughout the study period. Neurologists and surgeons were the most common referral sources, but an increased number of referrals from geneticists was observed. Most (94.5%) NCS/EMG were done on awake patients, with only 5.5% of studies being terminated early due to tolerability of the patient. Of all studies, 326/725 (44%) demonstrated a neuromuscular abnormality, of which 63.5% (207/326) were acquired conditions. Mononeuropathies and polyneuropathies were the most common electrophysiologic diagnoses. DISCUSSION: Our study indicates that NCS/EMG remains a useful diagnostic tool, both for the diagnosis of acquired neuromuscular conditions but also as an adjunct for interpreting genetic results, as indicated by the recent increase in referrals from geneticists. Overall NCS/EMG is well tolerated and able to be performed without sedation in children of all ages.

Correction: Screening for osteoporosis: A systematic assessment of the quality and content of clinical practice guidelines, using the AGREE II instrument and the IOM Standards for Trustworthy Guidelines.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208251.].

Screening for osteoporosis: A systematic assessment of the quality and content of clinical practice guidelines, using the AGREE II instrument and the IOM Standards for Trustworthy Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Numerous clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are published to guide management of osteoporosis. Little is known about their quality or how recommendations have changed over time. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the quality and content of the guidelines on screening for osteoporosis, using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool, and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards for trustworthy guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search for osteoporosis CPGs published between 2002-2016, using multiple databases and guideline websites. Two reviewers appraised the quality of eligible CPGs using the AGREE II. High quality CPGs were considered if they scored ≥ 60 in four or more domains including the domain for rigor of development. Non-parametric tests were used to test for the change of quality over time. One reviewer assessed the guidelines with IOM standards. We summarized the different evidence grading systems and extracted and compared the recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 33 CPGs were identified. The mean scores for AGREE II differed by domain (range: 42% to 71%). CPGs scored higher on domains for clarity of presentation, scope and purpose, and rigor of development. CPGs scored lower on domains for stakeholder involvement, editorial independence and applicability. Assessment of CPGs by IOM standards showed that CPGs scored better on standards for systematic review, establishing evidence foundation and rating strength of recommendation, articulation of recommendation, and establishing transparency. While scored lower on standards for updating, external review, and the development group composition. There was no difference in AGREE II and IOM defined guidelines' quality before and after the introduction of the two tools (P values >0.05). The IOM identified four more guidelines as high quality compared to the AGREE II. Examining these additional guidelines indicated that the two tools may give conflicting results especially for the rigor of development domain. Recommendations in certain areas showed substantial differences between guidelines. CONCLUSION: Osteoporosis screening CPGs are of variable quality, and their recommendations often differ. Guideline quality as measured by AGREE II and IOM standards has not improved overtime. Guideline developers should work together to improve the quality and consistency of recommendations to improve the likelihood that their guidelines will be used in practice.