Ø. Dunker , T.S. Szczepanski , H.O.P. Do , P. Omland , M.U. Lie , T. Sand , J.F. Jabre , K.B. Nilsen
{"title":"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","authors":"Ø. Dunker , T.S. Szczepanski , H.O.P. Do , P. Omland , M.U. Lie , T. Sand , J.F. Jabre , 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":"{\"title\":\"Harnessing historical data to derive reference limits – A comparison of e-norms to traditionally derived reference limits\",\"authors\":\"Ø. Dunker , T.S. Szczepanski , H.O.P. Do , P. Omland , M.U. Lie , T. Sand , J.F. Jabre , 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}","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}
Harnessing historical data to derive reference limits – A comparison of e-norms to traditionally derived reference limits
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.
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.