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

IF 2 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES Clinical Neurophysiology Practice Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.cnp.2024.04.001
Ø. Dunker , T.S. Szczepanski , H.O.P. Do , P. Omland , M.U. Lie , T. Sand , J.F. Jabre , K.B. Nilsen
{"title":"Harnessing historical data to derive reference limits – A comparison of e-norms to traditionally derived reference limits","authors":"Ø. Dunker ,&nbsp;T.S. Szczepanski ,&nbsp;H.O.P. Do ,&nbsp;P. Omland ,&nbsp;M.U. Lie ,&nbsp;T. Sand ,&nbsp;J.F. Jabre ,&nbsp;K.B. Nilsen","doi":"10.1016/j.cnp.2024.04.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>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).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45697,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neurophysiology Practice","volume":"9 ","pages":"Pages 168-175"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2467981X24000155/pdfft?md5=64f25142bfd766fa5e5d681037d332ee&pid=1-s2.0-S2467981X24000155-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neurophysiology Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2467981X24000155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用历史数据推导参考限值--电子规范与传统推导参考限值的比较
目的神经传导研究(NCS)需要有效的参考限才能进行有意义的解释。我们旨在进一步开发外推标准(e-norms)方法,以便从儿童和成人的历史实验室数据集中获取 NCS 参考限值,并将其与传统方法得出的参考限值进行比较。对照组数据包括 65 名健康儿童和 578 名健康成人,分别与 1294 名和 5628 名患者匹配。研究人员选择了五种常见的神经:胫骨和腓骨运动神经(振幅、传导速度、F 波),以及腓肠肌、腓浅肌和足底内侧感觉神经(振幅、传导速度)。数据集按医院进行匹配,以确保设备和程序相同。对 e-norms 方法进行了调整,并将使用±2 SD(原始方法)和±2.5 SD(以补偿 e-norms 方法对人群 SD 的预测低估)计算的参考限与使用±2 SD 的对照数据进行了比较。结果平均而言,与传统方法相比,电子标准法(平均 ±2 SD)产生的参考限略微严格。将电子标准值范围提高到平均 ±2.5 SD 可以改善儿童的结果,而成人组则略微校正过度。两种方法的平均一致性分别为 95 % (±2 SD) 和 96 % (±2.5 SD)。两种方法在 4-5% 的案例分类上存在分歧。我们的电子标准软件适用于分析大量的非传染性疾病原始数据;它应能进一步减少偏差,促进更准确的评级。重要意义只要稍作调整,电子标准方法就能充分复制传统方法得出的参考限值,是一种从历史数据集中生成参考限值的可行方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
71 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Neurophysiology Practice (CNP) is a new Open Access journal that focuses on clinical practice issues in clinical neurophysiology including relevant new research, case reports or clinical series, normal values and didactic reviews. It is an official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology and complements Clinical Neurophysiology which focuses on innovative research in the specialty. It has a role in supporting established clinical practice, and an educational role for trainees, technicians and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Primary progressive aphasia with focal periodic sharp wave complexes: An unusual manifestation of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease Effects of sleep deprivation on cortical excitability: A threshold-tracking TMS study and review of the literature The role of clinical neurophysiology in the definition and assessment of fatigue and fatigability Diagnosis and differential diagnosis of MND/ALS: IFCN handbook chapter Clinical neurophysiology of REM parasomnias: Diagnostic aspects and insights into pathophysiology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1