ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Efficient electrodiagnosis of polyneuropathy-a targeted three-nerve conduction study protocol.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Electrodiagnostic testing is central to the evaluation of polyneuropathy, yet substantial variability exists in nerve selection and testing protocols. This study aimed to identify the minimum nerve set that provides high sensitivity and overall diagnostic accuracy while retaining adequate specificity. Testing two motor and two sensory nerves was hypothesized to be diagnostically sufficient. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional cohort study using a deidentified database from the electrophysiology laboratory at Sheba Medical Center. Patients diagnosed with polyneuropathy were compared with individuals who had normal nerve conduction studies. Groups were matched for age and sex, and patients with coexisting conditions such as mononeuropathies or polyradiculopathies were excluded. Associations between nerve conduction parameters and polyneuropathy were examined using chi-square analyses. Parameters with significant associations were entered into separate multivariable logistic regression models for sensory and motor nerves. ROC analyses evaluated individual nerves and progressively expanded nerve-testing protocols. Optimal sensitivity and specificity were determined. Results: Among 455 patients, 259 had polyneuropathy, yielding 91 matched patient-control pairs. Binary sensory abnormalities of the sural and ulnar nerves were the strongest and most informative discriminators. Motor abnormalities were most prominent in the tibial and ulnar nerves. The initial three-nerve protocol, comprising sural sensory, tibial motor, and ulnar sensory and motor studies, achieved an AUC of 0.916, with 80.5% sensitivity and 89.6% specificity. Adding contralateral ulnar sensory testing increased the AUC only marginally to 0.923 and reduced sensitivity to 76.8%. Conclusion: The three-nerve protocol provided a favorable balance between sensitivity and specificity. These findings support a stepwise approach beginning with unilateral sural, tibial, and ulnar studies, followed by contralateral testing when needed to increase diagnostic confidence.
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.