Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35700346›Full record

ArticleJournal of the peripheral nervous system : JPNS2022

Electrodiagnostic subtyping in Guillain-Barré syndrome: Use of criteria in practice based on a survey study in IGOS.

Samuel Arends, Judith Drenthen, Peter Y K Van den Bergh, Robert D M Hadden, Nortina Shahrizaila, Mazen M Dimachkie, Gerardo Gutiérrez Gutiérrez, Hans Katzberg, Lynette Kiers, Helmar C Lehmann and 8 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the peripheral nervous system : JPNS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guillain-Barré syndrome.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 15 institutions in 12 countries.

Samuel ArendsDepartment of Neurology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4279-4657
Judith DrenthenDepartment of Neurology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2165-6573
Peter Y K Van den BerghDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital St-Luc, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-1954-4617
Robert D M HaddenDepartment of Neurology, King's College Hospital, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9702-0256
Nortina ShahrizailaDepartment of Neurology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Mazen M DimachkieDepartment of Neurology, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.
Gerardo Gutiérrez GutiérrezDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Universitario Infanta Sofia, San Sebastian, Spain.
Hans KatzbergDepartment of Neurology, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Lynette KiersClinical Neurophysiology, Department of Neurology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Australia.
Helmar C LehmannDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6205-2293
Yann PéréonDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology, Reference Centre for Neuromuscular Disorders AOC, Filnemus, Euro-NMD, University of Nantes, Nantes, France.
Ricardo C ReisinDepartment of Neurology, Hospital Británico, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Antonino UnciniDepartment of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, University "G. D'Annunzio", Chieti, Italy.
Camiel VerhammeDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wagar WaheedDepartment of Neurology, University of Vermont Medical Centre, Burlington, Vermont, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3049-5430
David R CornblathDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Bart C JacobsDepartment of Neurology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
IGOS Electrophysiology Expertise Group
Erasmus MC · NLAmsterdam Neuroscience · NLHospital Británico de Buenos Aires · ARHospital Universitario Infanta Sofía · ESJohns Hopkins University · USKing's College Hospital · GBNantes Université · FRThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUUCLouvain Saint-Louis Brussels · BEUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity Hospital Cologne · DEUniversity of Chieti-Pescara · ITUniversity of Kansas Medical Center · USUniversity of Malaya · MYUniversity of Vermont Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electrodiagnostic (EDx) studies are helpful in diagnosing and subtyping of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Published criteria for differentiation into GBS subtypes focus on cutoff values, but other items receive less attention, although they may influence EDx subtyping: (a) extensiveness of EDx testing, (b) nerve-specific considerations, (c) distal compound muscle action potential (CMAP)-amplitude requirements, (d) criteria for conduction block and temporal dispersion. The aims of this study were to investigate how these aspects were approached by neuromuscular EDx experts in practice and how this was done in previously published EDx criteria for GBS. A completed questionnaire was returned by 24 (of 49) members of the electrophysiology expertise group from the International GBS Outcome Study. Six published EDx criteria for GBS subtyping were compared regarding these aspects. The indicated minimal number of motor nerves to study varied among respondents and tended to be more extensive in equivocal than normal studies. Respondents varied considerably regarding usage of compression sites for subtyping (median/wrist, ulnar/elbow, peroneal/fibular head): 29% used all variables from all sites, 13% excluded all sites, and 58% used only some sites and/or variables. Thirty-eight percent of respondents required a minimal distal CMAP amplitude to classify distal motor latency as demyelinating, and 58% did for motor conduction velocity. For proximal/distal CMAP-amplitude ratio and F-wave latency, a requisite minimal CMAP amplitude was more often required (79%). Also, the various published criteria sets showed differences on all items. Practical use of EDx criteria for subtyping GBS vary extensively across respondents, potentially lowering the reproducibility of GBS subtyping.

Indexed as

Guillain-Barre SyndromeNeural ConductionHumansReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaireselectrodiagnostic criteriaelectromyographyGuillain-Barré syndromenerve conduction studiesvariation

Identifiers

PMID35700346
PMCPMC9542579
OpenAlexW4282831782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.