ArticleMuscle & nerve2021
Optimizing the operation of an electrodiagnostic laboratory during the COVID-19 pandemic: A 6-month single-center experience.
Article in Muscle & nerve, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
aimsThe initial surge of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in early 2020 led to widespread cancellation of elective medical procedures in the United States, including nonurgent outpatient and inpatient electrodiagnostic (EDx) studies. As certain regions later showed a downtrend in daily new cases, EDx laboratories have reopened under the guidance of the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM). In our reopening experience guided by the AANEM, we measured relevant outcomes to determine further workflow adaptations. We aimed to detail our experience and share the lessons learned.
methodsWe reviewed the clinical volumes, billing data, diagnosis distributions, and rates of COVID-19 exposure and transmission among patients and staff in our EDx laboratory during the first 6 months of reopening, starting on June 1, 2020. For context, we detailed the recent AANEM guidelines we adopted at our laboratory, supplemented by other consensus statements.
resultsWe completed 816 outpatient studies from June 1 to December 1, 2020, reaching 97% of the total volume and 97% of total billing compared with the same time period in 2019. The average relative value units per study were similar. There were no major shifts in diagnosis distributions. We completed 10 of 12 requested inpatient studies during this period. There were no known COVID-19 transmissions between patients and staff. DISCUSSION: Our experience suggests that it is possible to safely operate an EDx laboratory under the guidance of the AANEM and other experts, with clinical volume and billing rates comparable to pre-pandemic baselines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.