Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42544018›Full record

ArticleMuscle & nerve2026

Revisiting the Extrapolated Reference Values (E-Ref) Estimation.

Sanjeev D Nandedkar, Paul E Barkhaus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Sanjeev D NandedkarNatus Medical Inc., Hopewell Junction, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3310-4386
Paul E BarkhausMedical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8268-8643

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

INTRODUCTION/

aimsExtrapolated reference values (E-Ref) is a method to extract reference values (RVs) from a mixed data set (i.e., a data set containing normal and abnormal findings). This is an attractive way for any laboratory to develop their own RVs. Since its original description, we have made enhancements to the E-Ref method. Due to growing interest in this methodology, we describe our current version of the algorithm and interpretation of its results.

methodsThe cumulative distribution function (CDF) is the foundation of E-Ref methodology. Computer simulations were used to generate "normal" and mixed data sets of conduction velocity. The E-Ref algorithm was revised based on the analysis of CDF in the simulation studies. Bootstrap analysis was performed to assess the variability of estimates and finalize the RV. Median motor nerve conduction parameters from patient studies were analyzed.

resultsThe CDF shows a "plateau" that contains the majority of the normal data even in a mixed data set. The mean of data in the plateau approximated the mean of "normal" measurements. The difference between the maximum and minimum in the plateau was close to two standard deviations (SDs). DISCUSSION: The new algorithm establishes three ranges to define findings: definitely normal, definitely abnormal, and borderline. This is consistent with the customary clinical thought process where abnormalities are not "black and white." Bootstrap analysis must be performed for reliable estimates. This may be useful to assess the adequacy of the sample size.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsNeural ConductionComputer SimulationHumansNerve Conduction StudiesReference Valuesextrapolated normal valuesextrapolated reference valueslatencynerve conduction studyreference valuesvelocity

Identifiers

PMID42544018
PMCPMC13549155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.