ArticlePloS one2024
Estimation of the number of motor units in the human extensor digitorum brevis using MScanFit.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOur aim was to determine the number and size parameters of EDB motor units in healthy young adults using MScanFit, a novel approach to motor unit number estimation (MUNE). Since variability in MUNE is related to compound muscle action potential (CMAP) size, we employed a procedure to document the optimal EDB electromyographic (EMG) electrode position prior to recording MUNE, a neglected practice in MUNE.
methodsSubjects were 21 adults 21-44 y. Maximum CMAPs were recorded from 9 sites in a 4 cm2 region centered over the EDB and the site with the largest amplitude was used in the MUNE experiment. For MUNE, the peroneal nerve was stimulated at the fibular head to produce a detailed EDB stimulus-response curve or "MScan". Motor unit number and size parameters underlying the MScan were simulated using the MScanFit mathematical model.
resultsIn 19 persons, the optimal recording site was superior, superior and proximal, or superior and distal to the EDB mid-belly, whereas in 3 persons it was proximal to the mid-belly. Ranges of key MScanFit parameters were as follows: maximum CMAP amplitude (3.1-8.5 mV), mean SMUP amplitude (34.4-106.7 μV), mean normalized SMUP amplitude (%CMAP max, 0.95-2.3%), largest SMUP amplitude (82.7-348 μV), and MUNE (43-103). MUNE was not related to maximum CMAP amplitude (R2 = 0.09), but was related to mean SMUP amplitude (R2 = -0.19, P = 0.05).
conclusionThe EDB CMAP was highly sensitive to electrode position, and the optimal position differed between subjects. Individual differences in EDB MUNE were not related to CMAP amplitude. Inter-subject variability of EDB MUNE (coefficient of variation) was much less than previously reported, possibly explained by better optimization of the EMG electrode and the unique approach of MScanFit MUNE.
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.