Article
The value of electrodiagnostic consultation for patients with upper extremity nerve complaints: a prospective comparison with the history and physical examination,☆☆

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90029-1Get rights and content

Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether electrodiagnostic testing changes diagnostic certainty compared with a detailed history and physical examination, and whether interactions between medical information, the extent of testing, and diagnostic certainty imply a need for advanced medical knowledge on the part of the tester.

Design: Prospective observation.

Setting: University orthopedic department and small community hospital electrodiagnostic laboratories.

Patients: Two hundred fifty-five consecutive referrals for upper extremity nerve complaints.

Outcome Measures: Diagnosis, diagnostic confidence, and severity of neurologic lesion were coded after standardized history and physical and after electrodiagnostic testing.

Results: Electrodiagnostic testing substantially altered 42% of diagnoses, confirmed 37%, and did not clarify 21%. The extent of testing correlated with the size of the differential diagnosis, the number of previous hospitalizations, and the number of other medical problems. Confidence in final diagnoses correlated positively with severity of the lesion, but negatively with the size of the differential diagnosis and the number of painful body areas. Hospitalizations and medical problems also tended towards negative correlations.

Conclusions: This study, in which all electrodiagnostics, histories, and physical examinations were performed by a single physician, suggests that electrodiagnosis substantially alters clinical impressions in a large percentage of patients. The complex relationship between clinical information, the extent of testing, and final diagnostic certainty suggests that specialized medical knowledge is required for accurate electrodiagnosis.

References (27)

  • MJ Kothari et al.

    Electromyography: do the diagnostic ends justify the means?

    Arch Phys Med Rehabil

    (1995)
  • A Fuglsang-Frederiksen et al.

    Variation in performance of the EMG examination at six European laboratories

    Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol

    (1995)
  • PE Ellwood

    Shattuck Lecture-outcomes management

  • JE McEachern et al.

    Quality improvement: an imperative for medical care

    J Occup Med

    (1991)
  • GE Steffen

    Quality medical care

  • A Donabedian

    The quality of care

  • MG Cherniak et al.

    A comparison of traditional electrodiagnostic studies, electroneurometry, and vibrometry in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome

    J Hand Surg

    (1996)
  • J Kimura

    The carpal tunnel syndrome: localization of conduction abnormalities within the distal segment of the median nerve

    Brain

    (1979)
  • JA Liveson et al.

    Laboratory reference for clinical neurophysiology

    (1992)
  • CK Jablecki et al.

    Literature review of the usefulness of nerve conduction studies and electromyography for the evaluation of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome

  • V Chaudry et al.

    Inter- and intra-examiner reliability of nerve conduction measurements in normal subjects

    Ann Neurol

    (1991)
  • Y Xiang et al.

    Quality control in nerve conduction studies with coupled knowledge-based system approach

    Muscle Nerve

    (1992)
  • TN Monga

    AAEM practice topics in electrodiagnostic medicine: Guidelines for establishing a quality assurance program in an electrodiagnostic laboratory

    Muscle Nerve

    (1996)
  • Cited by (0)

    Presented (Best Poster Award) at the 1998 meeting of the Association of Academic Physiatrists, February 18–22, 1998, Atlanta, GA.

    ☆☆

    No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the authors or upon any organization with which the authors are associated.

    1

    Ms. LeBreck is currently a consultant in Lena, WI.

    View full text