View in EDS

Sensitivity and specificity of single and combined clouds analyses compared with quantitative motor unit potential analysis.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Sensitivity and specificity of single and combined clouds analyses compared with quantitative motor unit potential analysis.
Authors: Li C; Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China., Jiang A; Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China., Ding Q; Department of Neurology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China., Hu Y; Department of Neurology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China., Wang Y; Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China., Tian G; Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China., Wang H; Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China., Pan S; Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China., Cui L; Department of Neurology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China., Peng Y; Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Source: Muscle & nerve [Muscle Nerve] 2021 Feb; Vol. 63 (2), pp. 225-230. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Nov 13.
Publication Type: Comparative Study; Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Language: English
Journal Info: Publisher: John Wiley & Sons Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 7803146 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1097-4598 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 0148639X NLM ISO Abbreviation: Muscle Nerve Subsets: MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s): Publication: <2005-> : Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons
Original Publication: New York, NY : John Wiley & Sons
MeSH Terms: Electromyography/*methods , Motor Neuron Disease/*diagnosis , Muscle, Skeletal/*physiopathology , Muscular Diseases/*diagnosis , Peripheral Nervous System Diseases/*diagnosis, Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis/diagnosis ; Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis/physiopathology ; Dermatomyositis/diagnosis ; Dermatomyositis/physiopathology ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Electrodiagnosis ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Mononeuropathies/diagnosis ; Mononeuropathies/physiopathology ; Motor Neuron Disease/physiopathology ; Muscular Atrophy, Spinal/diagnosis ; Muscular Atrophy, Spinal/physiopathology ; Muscular Diseases/physiopathology ; Muscular Dystrophies/diagnosis ; Muscular Dystrophies/physiopathology ; Myositis/diagnosis ; Myositis/physiopathology ; Peripheral Nervous System Diseases/physiopathology ; Polyneuropathies/diagnosis ; Polyneuropathies/physiopathology ; Radiculopathy/diagnosis ; Radiculopathy/physiopathology ; Recruitment, Neurophysiological ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted ; Spinal Muscular Atrophies of Childhood/diagnosis ; Spinal Muscular Atrophies of Childhood/physiopathology ; Young Adult
Abstract: Introduction: Turns-amplitude, number of small segments (NSS)-activity, and envelope-activity clouds are three methods of electromyography (EMG) interference pattern analysis. Our objective was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of each individual cloud analysis and combined clouds analysis to compare with that of quantitative motor unit potential (QMUP) analysis.
Methods: A total of 379 muscles from 100 patients were analyzed by both QMUP and clouds analyses. Calculation of sensitivity and specificity was based on the clinical diagnosis as the "gold standard."
Results: For discrimination of abnormal vs normal and neuropathic vs non-neuropathic, combined clouds analysis had greater sensitivity than QMUP analysis and any single cloud analysis, but there were no differences in specificity. For discrimination of myopathic vs non-myopathic, combined clouds analysis and single cloud analysis had greater sensitivity than QMUP analysis, but there were no differences in specificity.
Discussion: Combined clouds analysis was superior to QMUP and each single cloud analysis for distinguishing normal, myopathic, and neuropathic muscles.
(© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)
References: Buchthal F, Rosenfalck P. Action potential parameters in different human muscles. Acta Psychiatr Neurol Scand. 1955;30:125-131.
Rosenfalck P. Electromyography in normal subjects of different age. Meth Clin Neurophysiol. 1991;2:47.
Nirkko AC, Rösler KM, Hess CW. Sensitivity and specificity of needle electromyography: a prospective study comparing automated interference pattern analysis with single motor unit potential analysis. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1995;97:1-10.
Finsterer J. EMG-interference pattern analysis. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2001;11:231-246.
Stålberg EV, Chu J, Bril V, Nandedkar SD, Stålberg S. Automatic analysis of the EMG interference pattern. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1983;56:672-681.
Nandedkar SD, Sanders DB, Stålberg EV. Simulation and analysis of the electromyographic interference pattern. Part II: activity, upper centile amplitude and number of small segments. Muscle Nerve. 1986;9:486-490.
Nandedkar SD, Sanders DB, Stålberg EV. Automatic analysis of the electromyographic interference pattern. Part I: development of quantitative features. Muscle Nerve. 1986;9:431-439.
Nandedkar SD, Sanders DB, Stålberg EV. Automatic analysis of the electromyographic interference pattern. Part II: findings in control subjects and in some neuromuscular diseases. Muscle Nerve. 1986;9:491-500.
Peng Y, Zhang SM, Wu MY, Wang Y, Pan SY. Developing turns-amplitude clouds for healthy Chinese: reference values and influence factors. Chin J Neurol. 2018;51:824-830.
Li C, Jiang A, Wu M, et al. Developing normal number of small segments-activity clouds of the electromyography interference pattern. Muscle Nerve. 2020;61(4):485-490. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.26806.
Buchthal F, Kamieniecka Z. The diagnostic yield of quantified electromyography and quantified muscle biopsy in neuromuscular disorders. Muscle Nerve. 1982;5:265-280.
Fuglsang-Frederiksen A, Scheel U, Buchthal F. Diagnostic yield of analysis of the pattern of electrical activity and of individual motor unit potentials in myopathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1976;39:742-750.
Daube JR. AAEM minimonograph #11: needle examination in clinical electromyography. Muscle Nerve. 1991;14:685-700.
Liguori R, Dahl K, Fuglsang-Frederiksen A, Trojaborg W. Turns-amplitude analysis of the electromyographic recruitment pattern disregarding force measurement. II. Findings in patients with neuromuscular disorders. Muscle Nerve. 1992;15:1319-1324.
Sonoo M, Stålberg E. The ability of MUP parameters to discriminate between normal and neurogenic MUPs in concentric EMG: analysis of the MUP "thickness" and the proposal of "size index". Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1993;89:291-303.
Contributed Indexing: Keywords: electromyography, envelope-activity cloud, interference pattern analysis, NSS-activity cloud, quantitative motor unit potential, turns-amplitude cloud
SCR Disease Name: Amyotrophy, monomelic
Entry Date(s): Date Created: 20201025 Date Completed: 20210315 Latest Revision: 20210315
Update Code: 20250114
DOI: 10.1002/mus.27106
PMID: 33099787
Database: MEDLINE
Description
Abstract:Introduction: Turns-amplitude, number of small segments (NSS)-activity, and envelope-activity clouds are three methods of electromyography (EMG) interference pattern analysis. Our objective was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of each individual cloud analysis and combined clouds analysis to compare with that of quantitative motor unit potential (QMUP) analysis.<br />Methods: A total of 379 muscles from 100 patients were analyzed by both QMUP and clouds analyses. Calculation of sensitivity and specificity was based on the clinical diagnosis as the "gold standard."<br />Results: For discrimination of abnormal vs normal and neuropathic vs non-neuropathic, combined clouds analysis had greater sensitivity than QMUP analysis and any single cloud analysis, but there were no differences in specificity. For discrimination of myopathic vs non-myopathic, combined clouds analysis and single cloud analysis had greater sensitivity than QMUP analysis, but there were no differences in specificity.<br />Discussion: Combined clouds analysis was superior to QMUP and each single cloud analysis for distinguishing normal, myopathic, and neuropathic muscles.<br /> (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)
ISSN:1097-4598
DOI:10.1002/mus.27106