Considerations in reference values for nerve conduction studies.

S H Wang; L R Robinson

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9894102

Considerations in reference values for nerve conduction studies.

S H Wang·L R Robinson

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Despite the universal application of reference values, understanding their production and underlying limitations is often overlooked. Without a deeper consideration for this issue, opportunities for treatment may be missed or misdiagnosis may occur. This article reviews relevant biostatistical issues in the generation of reference intervals and subsequent errors that may occur. Further discussion includes recommendations on how to correct statistical errors, as well as more recent methods for distinguishing between "healthy" and "diseased."

Explore related subjects

Biometry Electrodiagnosis Electromyography Humans Neural Conduction Normal Distribution Peripheral Nerves Peripheral Nervous System Diseases Predictive Value of Tests Probability Reference Values Sensitivity and Specificity Terminology as Topic Journal Article Review

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

S H Wang, L R Robinson. 1998. Considerations in reference values for nerve conduction studies.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9894102/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Size-dependent ESS sex allocation in wind-pollinated cosexual plants: fecundity vs. stature effects.

To theoretically investigate the single and compound effects of relative fecundity and relative stature of plants on size-dependent sex allocation (SDS) in wind-pollinated cosexual species, we developed a game model and analysed ESS sex allocation of large and small plants having totally or partially different reproductive resources and different pollen and seed dispersal areas in a population. We found that e.g. when both sized plants have large pollen dispersal areas relative to their seed dispersal areas, which plants are male-biased is largely determined by relative fecundity (t) and relative size of seed dispersal area (k) of the large plants to the small plants: If t >k, large plants tend to be more male-biased even if relative size of pollen dispersal area of large to small plants (l) is smaller than k. If t<k, large plants tend to be more female-biased even if with very large l, e.g. infinity l. Comprehensively, neither very large relative size of pollen to seed dispersal area, nor great expansion of pollen dispersal area with plant size, such as previous models assumed, is important for the increasing maleness with plant size in our model.

Biometry↗

PubMed2003

[Common biostatistical errors in clinical studies].

Roughly half to two third of all published biomedical studies that use statistical methods contain unacceptable errors. The present article points at common errors that may be avoided without requiring profound statistical knowledge. These errors mainly concern the minimal number of patients and sample size (statistical power), agreement between aim and conclusion, distribution of data as well as description of location and variability of data. An analysis of 150 papers in the New England Journal of Medicine and in Circulation demonstrates that these errors can also commonly be found in respected journals after statistical peer review. Editors of biomedical journals could reduce the problem by means of statistical guidelines.

Biometry↗

PubMed2003

Multiple method comparison: statistical model using percentage similarity.

BACKGROUND: Method comparison typically determines how well two methods agree. This is usually performed using the difference plot model, which measures absolute differences between two methods. This is often not applicable to data with wide ranges of absolute values. An alternative model is introduced that simplifies comparisons specifically for multiple methods compared to a gold standard. METHODS: The average between a new method and the gold standard is represented as a percentage of the gold standard. This is interpreted as a percentage similarity value and accommodates wide ranges of data. The representation of the percentage similarity values in a histogram format highlights the accuracy and precision of several compared methods to a gold standard. The calculation of a coefficient of variation further defines agreement between methods. RESULTS: Percentage similarity histograms of several new methods can be compared to a gold standard simultaneously, and the comparison easily visualized through use of a single 100% similarity reference line drawn common to all plots. CONCLUSION: This simple method of comparison would be particularly useful for multiple method comparison and is especially applicable for centers collating for external quality assessment or assurance programs to demonstrate differences in results between laboratories.

Biometry↗