ArticleMuscle & nerve2026
Diagnostic Performance of the Strength-Duration Test for Bedside Screening of Critical Illness Polyneuropathy and/or Myopathy: A Prospective, Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Muscle & nerve, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
aimsCritical illness polyneuropathy and/or myopathy (CIP/CIM) is a major cause of weakness in the intensive care unit (ICU). The availability of conventional electrodiagnostic testing may be limited. Alternative electrophysiologic methods, including the strength-duration test (SDT) and the stimulus electrodiagnosis test (SET), have been proposed as bedside screening adjuncts. This study aimed to evaluate the SDT's diagnostic metrics for CIP/CIM screening and to compare with the SET's performance.
methodsThis prospective, cross-sectional study included adult, mechanically ventilated ICU patients. Single assessment per patient comprised the peroneal simplified electrophysiological test (PENT), SDT, and SET. Using PENT as the reference test, we calculated the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios of SDT. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed to assess the discriminative performance and optimal cutoff.
resultsSixty participants were enrolled, yielding 101 assessments, including bilateral evaluations when feasible. The SDT demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7-0.8, p < 0.001), with an optimal cutoff of 600 mC. At this cutoff, SDT showed a sensitivity of 73% (95% CI: 61-82), specificity of 68% (95% CI: 53-81), accuracy of 71% (95% CI: 62-79), and positive likelihood ratio of 2.3 (95% CI: 1.41-3.78) for screening probable CIP/CIM. The SET yielded an AUC of 0.7 (95% CI: 0.6-0.8, p = 0.001). DISCUSSION: The SDT showed potential as a bedside screening adjunct for CIP/CIM in the ICU setting. Further multicenter studies are required to validate these findings and to define the role of SDT in clinical practice.
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.