Nerve Conduction Studies as a Measure of Disease Progression

Objectivity or Illusion?

Giuseppe Lanza, Ana Kosac, Goran Trajkovic, Roger G. Whittaker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Clinical nerve conduction studies (NCS) are often used as a secondary outcome measure in therapeutic trials, but show a high degree of inter-trial variability even when technical factors known to affect the recorded responses are minimised. This raises the intriguing possibility that some of the observed variability may reflect true changes in nerve activity. Objectives: Our aim was determine how much variability these factors might produce, and how this might affect the results of commonly used neuropathy rating scales. Methods: A standardised protocol was repeated over forty consecutive trials by the same operators in two healthy subjects. The protocol included recordings that shared either a stimulating or a recording electrode position, such that changes due to electrode position could be excluded, and hand temperature was closely controlled. Results: Despite controlling for inter-operator differences, electrode position, and hand temperature, the variability in sensory nerve action potential (SNAP) amplitude was extremely high (Range 23μV, CoV = 10.7-18.8). This variability was greater than the change in amplitude needed to move a subject from point 0 to point 4 on the CMT neuropathy rating scale. Neither temperature or electrode position accounted for all of this variability, suggesting that additional as yet unidentified factors are responsible. Conclusion: Even under closely controlled conditions and sophisticated laboratory methods, test-to-test variability can be significant. The factors responsible for this variability may be difficult to control, limiting the utility of single nerve recordings as a trial outcome measure.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)209-215
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Neuromuscular Diseases
Volume4
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

Neural Conduction
Disease Progression
Electrodes
Temperature
Hand
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Action Potentials
Healthy Volunteers
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Nerve conduction studies
  • nerve excitability
  • reproducibility
  • serial measurements
  • technical variability

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neurology
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Nerve Conduction Studies as a Measure of Disease Progression : Objectivity or Illusion? / Lanza, Giuseppe; Kosac, Ana; Trajkovic, Goran; Whittaker, Roger G.

In: Journal of Neuromuscular Diseases, Vol. 4, No. 3, 01.01.2017, p. 209-215.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lanza, Giuseppe ; Kosac, Ana ; Trajkovic, Goran ; Whittaker, Roger G. / Nerve Conduction Studies as a Measure of Disease Progression : Objectivity or Illusion?. In: Journal of Neuromuscular Diseases. 2017 ; Vol. 4, No. 3. pp. 209-215.
@article{62f787ed9ffb460183d0bfdb8e266a77,
title = "Nerve Conduction Studies as a Measure of Disease Progression: Objectivity or Illusion?",
abstract = "Background: Clinical nerve conduction studies (NCS) are often used as a secondary outcome measure in therapeutic trials, but show a high degree of inter-trial variability even when technical factors known to affect the recorded responses are minimised. This raises the intriguing possibility that some of the observed variability may reflect true changes in nerve activity. Objectives: Our aim was determine how much variability these factors might produce, and how this might affect the results of commonly used neuropathy rating scales. Methods: A standardised protocol was repeated over forty consecutive trials by the same operators in two healthy subjects. The protocol included recordings that shared either a stimulating or a recording electrode position, such that changes due to electrode position could be excluded, and hand temperature was closely controlled. Results: Despite controlling for inter-operator differences, electrode position, and hand temperature, the variability in sensory nerve action potential (SNAP) amplitude was extremely high (Range 23μV, CoV = 10.7-18.8). This variability was greater than the change in amplitude needed to move a subject from point 0 to point 4 on the CMT neuropathy rating scale. Neither temperature or electrode position accounted for all of this variability, suggesting that additional as yet unidentified factors are responsible. Conclusion: Even under closely controlled conditions and sophisticated laboratory methods, test-to-test variability can be significant. The factors responsible for this variability may be difficult to control, limiting the utility of single nerve recordings as a trial outcome measure.",
keywords = "Nerve conduction studies, nerve excitability, reproducibility, serial measurements, technical variability",
author = "Giuseppe Lanza and Ana Kosac and Goran Trajkovic and Whittaker, {Roger G.}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3233/JND-170243",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "209--215",
journal = "Journal of Neuromuscular Diseases",
issn = "2214-3599",
publisher = "IOS Press",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Nerve Conduction Studies as a Measure of Disease Progression

T2 - Objectivity or Illusion?

AU - Lanza, Giuseppe

AU - Kosac, Ana

AU - Trajkovic, Goran

AU - Whittaker, Roger G.

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Background: Clinical nerve conduction studies (NCS) are often used as a secondary outcome measure in therapeutic trials, but show a high degree of inter-trial variability even when technical factors known to affect the recorded responses are minimised. This raises the intriguing possibility that some of the observed variability may reflect true changes in nerve activity. Objectives: Our aim was determine how much variability these factors might produce, and how this might affect the results of commonly used neuropathy rating scales. Methods: A standardised protocol was repeated over forty consecutive trials by the same operators in two healthy subjects. The protocol included recordings that shared either a stimulating or a recording electrode position, such that changes due to electrode position could be excluded, and hand temperature was closely controlled. Results: Despite controlling for inter-operator differences, electrode position, and hand temperature, the variability in sensory nerve action potential (SNAP) amplitude was extremely high (Range 23μV, CoV = 10.7-18.8). This variability was greater than the change in amplitude needed to move a subject from point 0 to point 4 on the CMT neuropathy rating scale. Neither temperature or electrode position accounted for all of this variability, suggesting that additional as yet unidentified factors are responsible. Conclusion: Even under closely controlled conditions and sophisticated laboratory methods, test-to-test variability can be significant. The factors responsible for this variability may be difficult to control, limiting the utility of single nerve recordings as a trial outcome measure.

AB - Background: Clinical nerve conduction studies (NCS) are often used as a secondary outcome measure in therapeutic trials, but show a high degree of inter-trial variability even when technical factors known to affect the recorded responses are minimised. This raises the intriguing possibility that some of the observed variability may reflect true changes in nerve activity. Objectives: Our aim was determine how much variability these factors might produce, and how this might affect the results of commonly used neuropathy rating scales. Methods: A standardised protocol was repeated over forty consecutive trials by the same operators in two healthy subjects. The protocol included recordings that shared either a stimulating or a recording electrode position, such that changes due to electrode position could be excluded, and hand temperature was closely controlled. Results: Despite controlling for inter-operator differences, electrode position, and hand temperature, the variability in sensory nerve action potential (SNAP) amplitude was extremely high (Range 23μV, CoV = 10.7-18.8). This variability was greater than the change in amplitude needed to move a subject from point 0 to point 4 on the CMT neuropathy rating scale. Neither temperature or electrode position accounted for all of this variability, suggesting that additional as yet unidentified factors are responsible. Conclusion: Even under closely controlled conditions and sophisticated laboratory methods, test-to-test variability can be significant. The factors responsible for this variability may be difficult to control, limiting the utility of single nerve recordings as a trial outcome measure.

KW - Nerve conduction studies

KW - nerve excitability

KW - reproducibility

KW - serial measurements

KW - technical variability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032841662&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032841662&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3233/JND-170243

DO - 10.3233/JND-170243

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 209

EP - 215

JO - Journal of Neuromuscular Diseases

JF - Journal of Neuromuscular Diseases

SN - 2214-3599

IS - 3

ER -