Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38707483›Full record

ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2024

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

Ø Dunker, T S Szczepanski, H O P Do, P Omland, M U Lie, T Sand, J F Jabre, K B Nilsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2024. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. E-norms and AI in clinical neurophysiology.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2024
    Article
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

8 authors.

Ø DunkerDepartment of Research and Innovation, Division of Neuroscience, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
T S SzczepanskiDepartment of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
H O P DoDepartment of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
P OmlandDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
M U LieDepartment of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
T SandDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
J F JabreFormerly, Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
K B NilsenDepartment of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

DIGMINEE-normsNerve conduction studiesReference limits

Identifiers

PMID38707483
PMCPMC11067331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.