Harnessing historical data to derive reference limits - A comparison of e-norms to traditionally derived reference limits.

Objective: Nerve conduction studies (NCS) require valid reference limits for meaningful interpretation. We aimed to further develop the extrapolated norms (e-norms) method for obtaining NCS reference limits from historical laboratory datasets for children and adults, and to validate it against traditionally derived reference limits. Methods: We compared reference limits obtained by applying a further developed e-norms with reference limits from healthy controls for the age strata's 9-18, 20-44 and 45-60 years old. The control data consisted of 65 healthy children and 578 healthy adults, matched with 1294 and 5628 patients respectively. Five commonly investigated nerves were chosen: The tibial and peroneal motor nerves (amplitudes, conduction velocities, F-waves), and the sural, superficial peroneal and medial plantar sensory nerves (amplitudes, conduction velocities). The datasets were matched by hospital to ensure identical equipment and protocols. The e-norms method was adapted, and reference limit calculation using both ±2 SD (original method) and ±2.5 SD (to compensate for predicted underestimation of population SD by the e-norms method) was compared to control data using ±2 SD. Percentage agreement between e-norms and the traditional method was calculated. Results: On average, the e-norms method (mean ±2 SD) produced slightly stricter reference limits compared to the traditional method. Increasing the e-norms range to mean ±2.5 SD improved the results in children while slightly overcorrecting in the adult group. The average agreement between the two methods was 95 % (±2 SD) and 96 % (±2.5 SD). Conclusions: The e-norms method yielded slightly stricter reference limits overall than ones obtained through traditional methods; However, much of the difference can be attributed to a few outlying plots where the raters found it difficult to apply e-norms correctly. The two methods disagreed on classification of 4-5% of cases. Our e-norms software is suited to analyze large amounts of raw NCS data; it should further reduce bias and facilitate more accurate ratings. Significance: With small adaptations, the e-norms method adequately replicates traditionally derived reference limits, and is a viable method to produce reference limits from historical datasets.

Estimating motor unit numbers from a CMAP scan: Repeatability study on three muscles at 15 centres.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the repeatability and suitability for multicentre studies of MScanFit motor unit number estimation (MUNE), which involves modelling compound muscle action potential (CMAP) scans. METHODS: Fifteen groups in 9 countries recorded CMAP scans twice, 1-2 weeks apart in healthy subjects from abductor pollicis brevis (APB), abductor digiti minimi (ADM) and tibialis anterior (TA) muscles. The original MScanFit program (MScanFit-1) was compared with a revised version (MScanFit-2), designed to accommodate different muscles and recording conditions by setting the minimal motor unit size as a function of maximum CMAP. RESULTS: Complete sets of 6 recordings were obtained from 148 subjects. CMAP amplitudes differed significantly between centres for all muscles, and the same was true for MScanFit-1 MUNE. With MScanFit-2, MUNE differed less between centres but remained significantly different for APB. Coefficients of variation between repeats were 18.0% for ADM, 16.8% for APB, and 12.1% for TA. CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended for multicentre studies to use MScanFit-2 for analysis. TA provided the least variable MUNE values between subjects and the most repeatable within subjects. SIGNIFICANCE: MScanFit was primarily devised to model the discontinuities in CMAP scans in patients and is less suitable for healthy subjects with smooth scans.

Can within-subject comparisons of thermal thresholds be used for diagnostic purposes?

OBJECTIVE: Quantitative thermal testing (QTT) is a psychophysical assessment method of small nerve fibers that relies on reference material to assess function. Normal limits for within-subject comparisons of thermal thresholds are scarce, and their association with age, height and sex is not fully elucidated. The aim of this study was to investigate the normal limits for distal-proximal- and contralateral homologous comparisons of thermal thresholds with QTT, and their association with age, sex or height. METHODS: Fifty healthy volunteers ages 20-79 participated in the experiment. Cold detection thresholds (CDT), warm detection thresholds (WDT), heat pain thresholds (HPT), and cold pain thresholds (CPT) were measured bilaterally at the thenar eminence, anterior thigh, distal medial leg and foot dorsum. Sample normal limits were calculated as (mean) ±â€¯2 SD. RESULTS: Forty-eight subjects were included in the analysis. CPT was excluded from all analyses due to a large floor-effect. Sample normal limits for side-differences ranged from 1.8 to 7.2 °C for CDT, 2.4-6.8 °C for WDT and 3.2-4.0 °C for HPT, depending on anatomical site. For distal-proximal comparisons, sample normal limits ranged from 4.0 to 8.7 °C for CDT, 6.0-14.0 °C for WDT and 4.2-9.0 °C for HPT, depending on the pairs compared. Age was associated with side-differences for CDT in the thenar eminences (p < 0.001) and distal medial legs (p < 0.002), and with 11 of 18 distal-proximal comparisons (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The normal limits for distal-proximal- and contralateral homologous thermal thresholds were wide, and thus of limited use in a clinical setting, although the reported values may be somewhat inflated by low sample-size and consequent age-pooling. Age, but not sex or height, was associated with contralateral differences in CDT in the thenar eminences and distal medial legs, and with most distal-proximal differences. SIGNIFICANCE: Due to wide normal limits, we advise caution when utilizing relative comparisons of thermal thresholds for diagnostic purposes.