Dataset Information

Critically re-evaluating a common technique: Accuracy, reliability, and confirmation bias of EMG.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

(1) To assess the diagnostic accuracy of EMG in radiculopathy. (2) To evaluate the intrarater reliability and interrater reliability of EMG in radiculopathy. (3) To assess the presence of confirmation bias in EMG.

Methods

Three experienced academic electromyographers interpreted 3 compact discs with 20 EMG videos (10 normal, 10 radiculopathy) in a blinded, standardized fashion without information regarding the nature of the study. The EMGs were interpreted 3 times (discs A, B, C) 1 month apart. Clinical information was provided only with disc C. Intrarater reliability was calculated by comparing interpretations in discs A and B, interrater reliability by comparing interpretation between reviewers. Confirmation bias was estimated by the difference in correct interpretations when clinical information was provided.

Results

Sensitivity was similar to previous reports (77%, confidence interval [CI] 63%-90%); specificity was 71%, CI 56%-85%. Intrarater reliability was good (? 0.61, 95% CI 0.41-0.81); interrater reliability was lower (? 0.53, CI 0.35-0.71). There was no substantial confirmation bias when clinical information was provided (absolute difference in correct responses 2.2%, CI -13.3% to 17.7%); the study lacked precision to exclude moderate confirmation bias.

Conclusions

This study supports that (1) serial EMG studies should be performed by the same electromyographer since intrarater reliability is better than interrater reliability; (2) knowledge of clinical information does not bias EMG interpretation substantially; (3) EMG has moderate diagnostic accuracy for radiculopathy with modest specificity and electromyographers should exercise caution interpreting mild abnormalities.

Classification of evidence

This study provides Class III evidence that EMG has moderate diagnostic accuracy and specificity for radiculopathy.

SUBMITTER: Narayanaswami P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4733154 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Critically re-evaluating a common technique: Accuracy, reliability, and confirmation bias of EMG.

Narayanaswami Pushpa P Geisbush Thomas T Jones Lyell L Weiss Michael M Mozaffar Tahseen T Gronseth Gary G Rutkove Seward B SB

Neurology 20151223 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>(1) To assess the diagnostic accuracy of EMG in radiculopathy. (2) To evaluate the intrarater reliability and interrater reliability of EMG in radiculopathy. (3) To assess the presence of confirmation bias in EMG.<h4>Methods</h4>Three experienced academic electromyographers interpreted 3 compact discs with 20 EMG videos (10 normal, 10 radiculopathy) in a blinded, standardized fashion without information regarding the nature of the study. The EMGs were interpreted 3 times (disc ...[more]

PMID: 26701380

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the accuracy of bedside ultrasound for confirmation of central venous catheter position and exclusion of pneumothorax compared with chest radiography. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, reference lists, conference proceedings and ClinicalTrials.gov. STUDY SELECTION:Articles and abstracts describing the diagnostic accuracy of bedside ultrasound compared with chest radiography for confirmation of central venous catheters in sufficient detail to reconstruct 2?×?2 contingency tables were reviewed. Primary outcomes included the accuracy of confirming catheter positioning and detecting a pneumothorax. Secondary outcomes included feasibility, interrater reliability, and efficiency to complete bedside ultrasound confirmation of central venous catheter position. DATA EXTRACTION:Investigators abstracted study details including research design and sonographic imaging technique to detect catheter malposition and procedure-related pneumothorax. Diagnostic accuracy measures included pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio. DATA SYNTHESIS:Fifteen studies with 1,553 central venous catheter placements were identified with a pooled sensitivity and specificity of catheter malposition by ultrasound of 0.82 (0.77-0.86) and 0.98 (0.97-0.99), respectively. The pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios of catheter malposition by ultrasound were 31.12 (14.72-65.78) and 0.25 (0.13-0.47). The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound for pneumothorax detection was nearly 100% in the participating studies. Bedside ultrasound reduced mean central venous catheter confirmation time by 58.3 minutes. Risk of bias and clinical heterogeneity in the studies were high. CONCLUSIONS:Bedside ultrasound is faster than radiography at identifying pneumothorax after central venous catheter insertion. When a central venous catheter malposition exists, bedside ultrasound will identify four out of every five earlier than chest radiography.

Dataset Information

Critically re-evaluating a common technique: Accuracy, reliability, and confirmation bias of EMG.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Classification of evidence

Publications

Critically re-evaluating a common technique: Accuracy, reliability, and confirmation bias of EMG.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets