Andary, Michael

ABSTRACT Introduction: There are not uniform standards for nerve conduction testing across the United States. The objective of this study is to present a set of methodologically sound criteria to evaluate the literature for the purpose of identifying high‐quality normative nerve conduction studies (NCS) suitable for widespread use. Methods: The Normative Data Task Force (NDTF) was formed to review published studies on methodological issues related to NCS. A set of criteria was then developed to evaluate the literature. These criteria and their rationale are described. Results: We identified 7 key issues that reflect high quality in NCS. For each issue, specific review criteria were developed. Conclusion: Rigorous criteria enable identification of high‐quality studies dealing with nerve conduction reference values. This represents the first step toward the overarching goal of recommending NCS techniques and reference values for electrodiagnostic medicine. Muscle Nerve 54 : 366–370, 2016

ABSTRACT Introduction: To address the need for greater standardization within the field of electrodiagnostic medicine, the Normative Data Task Force (NDTF) was formed to identify nerve conduction studies (NCS) in the literature, evaluate them using consensus‐based methodological criteria derived by the NDTF, and identify those suitable as a resource for NCS metrics. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted of published peer‐reviewed scientific articles for 11 routinely performed sensory and motor NCS from 1990 to 2012. Results : Over 7,500 articles were found. After review using consensus‐based methodological criteria, only 1 study each met all quality criteria for 10 nerves. Conclusion: The NDTF selected only those studies that met all quality criteria and were considered suitable as a clinical resource for NCS metrics. The literature is, however, limited and these findings should be confirmed by larger, multicenter collaborative efforts. Muscle Nerve 54 : 371–377, 2016

ABSTRACTIntroduction: Numerous methods for motor unit number estimation (MUNE) have been developed. The objective of this article is to summarize and compare the major methods and the available data regarding their reproducibility, validity, application, refinement, and utility.Methods: Using specified search criteria, a systematic review of the literature was performed. Reproducibility, normative data, application to specific diseases and conditions, technical refinements, and practicality were compiled into a comprehensive database and analyzed.Results: The most commonly reported MUNE methods are the incremental, multiple‐point stimulation, spike‐triggered averaging, and statistical methods. All have established normative data sets and high reproducibility. MUNE provides quantitative assessments of motor neuron loss and has been applied successfully to the study of many clinical conditions, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and normal aging.Conclusions: MUNE is an important research technique in human subjects, providing important data regarding motor unit populations and motor unit loss over time.Muscle Nerve50: 884–893, 2014