J Yeungnam Med Sci.  2024 Jul;41(3):220-227. 10.12701/jyms.2024.00381.

How much does clinical prediagnosis correlate with electrophysiological findings?: a retrospective study

• İnceoğlu S
• Ayyıldız A
• Yılmaz F
• Kuran B

• KMID: 2558147
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.12701/jyms.2024.00381

Abstract

Background
Electrodiagnostic testing (EDX) is important in the diagnosis and follow-up of neuropathic and myopathic diseases. This study aimed to demonstrate the compatibility between clinical prediagnosis and electrophysiological findings.
Methods
EDX results from 2004 to 2020 at the physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) clinic were screened. Tests with missing data, reevaluation studies, and cases of peripheral facial paralysis were excluded. The clinical prediagnosis and EDX results were recorded, and their compatibility was evaluated.
Results
A total of 2,153 tests were included in this study. The mean age was 49.0±13.9 years and 1,533 of them (71.2%) were female. The most frequently referred clinic was the PM&R clinic (90.0%). Numbness (73.6%) was the most common complaint, followed by pain (15.3%) and weakness (13.9%). The most common prediagnosis was entrapment neuropathy (55.3%), radiculopathy (16.1%), and polyneuropathy (15.7%). Carpal tunnel syndrome was the most frequently identified type of entrapment neuropathy (78.3%). Six hundred and seventy EDX results (31.1%) were within normal limits. While the EDX results were consistent with the prediagnosis in 1,328 patients (61.7%), a pathology different from the prediagnosis was detected in 155 patients (7.2%). In the discrepancy group, the most common pathologies were entrapment neuropathy (51.7%), polyneuropathy (17.3%), and radiculopathy (15.1%). The most common neuropathy type was carpal tunnel syndrome (79.3%).
Conclusion
After adequate anamnesis and physical and neurological examinations, requesting further appropriate tests will increase the prediagnosis accuracy and prevent unnecessary expenditure of time and labor.

Keyword

Correlation; Electrodiagnostic testing; Electromyography; Electrophysiological findings; Prediagnosis

Reference

References

1. Mondelli M, Aretini A, Greco G. Knowledge of electromyography (EMG) in patients undergoing EMG examinations. Funct Neurol. 2014; 29:195–200.

2. American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine. Guidelines in electrodiagnostic medicine. Muscle Nerve. 1992; 15:229–53.

3. Katirji B. Electrodiagnosis of neuromuscular junction disorders. In : Kaminski HJ, editor. Myasthenia gravis and related disorders. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press;2003. p. 149–75.

4. Aminoff MJ. Electromyography in clinical practice. 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone;1998.

5. Podnar S. Critical reappraisal of referrals to electromyography and nerve conduction studies. Eur J Neurol. 2005; 12:150–5.

6. Nikolic A, Stevic Z, Peric S, Stojanovic VR, Lavrnic D. Evaluation of the adequacy of requests for electrodiagnostic examination in a tertiary referral center. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2016; 148:130–6.

7. Fuller G. How to get the most out of nerve conduction studies and electromyography. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005; 76(Suppl 2):ii41–6.

8. Wu WT, Chang KV, Hsu YC, Tsai YY, Mezian K, Ricci V, et al. Ultrasound imaging and guidance for distal peripheral nerve pathologies at the wrist/hand. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13:1928.

9. Chémali KR, Tsao B. Electrodiagnostic testing of nerves and muscles: when, why, and how to order. Cleve Clin J Med. 2005; 72:37–48.

10. Karadag YS, Golgeleyen D, Saka M, Bilen S, Oztekin NS, Ak F. Referral diagnosis versus electroneurophysiological findings-three years experience from a tertiary hospital. Eur J Gen Med. 2014; 11:244–7.

11. Johnsen B, Fuglsang-Frederiksen A, Vingtoft S, Fawcett P, Liguori R, Nix W, et al. Differences in the handling of the EMG examination at seven European laboratories. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1994; 93:155–8.

12. Ustaömer K, Sarıfakıoğlu AB. Prediagnosis- electrodiagnosis; how much concordant? Namık Kemal Tıp Dergisi. 2018; 6:1–8.

13. Sarman H, Işık C, Çakıcı H, Özturan KE, Boz M, Şahin AA, et al. Unnecessary EMG use in patients with peripheral neuropathy. Eur J Health Sci. 2015; 1:63–5.

14. Köroğlu Ö, Öztürk B. The correlation between clinical referral diagnosis versus electrodiagnostic diagnosis for peripheric neuropathy; is there any difference between different departments? Med J Mugla Sitki Kocman Univ. 2019; 6:119–22.

15. Preston DC, Shapiro BE. Polyneuropathy. In : Preston DC, Shapiro BE, editors. Electomiyography and neuromusculer disorders. Philedelphia: Elsevier;2005. p. 387–420.

16. Hussein N, Desmarets T, Seth M. Correlation between clinical and electrophysiological findings of carpal tunnel syndrome. Int Phys Med Rehab J. 2018; 3:234–8.

17. Yilmaz E, Toluk Ö. Comparison of clinical findings and electromyography results in patients with preliminary diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2022; 65:102688.

18. Tulipan JE, Lutsky KF, Maltenfort MG, Freedman MK, Beredjiklian PK. Patient-reported disability measures do not correlate with electrodiagnostic severity in carpal tunnel syndrome. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017; 5:e1440.

19. Yang A, Cavanaugh P, Beredjiklian PK, Matzon JL, Seigerman D, Jones CM. Correlation of carpal tunnel syndrome 6 score and physical exam maneuvers with electrodiagnostic test severity in carpal tunnel syndrome: a blinded prospective cohort study. J Hand Surg Am. 2023; 48:335–9.

20. Danner R. Referral diagnosis versus electroneurophysiological finding. Two years electroneuromyographic consultation in a rehabilitation clinic. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1990; 30:153–7.

21. Nardin RA, Rutkove SB, Raynor EM. Diagnostic accuracy of electrodiagnostic testing in the evaluation of weakness. Muscle Nerve. 2002; 26:201–5.

22. Cocito D, Tavella A, Ciaramitaro P, Costa P, Poglio F, Paolasso I, et al. A further critical evaluation of requests for electrodiagnostic examinations. Neurol Sci. 2006; 26:419–22.

23. Su X, Kong X, Kong X, Zhu Q, Lu Z, Zheng C. Multisequence magnetic resonance neurography of brachial and lumbosacral plexus in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: correlations with electrophysiological parameters and clinical features. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2023; 16:17562864221150540.

24. Luigetti M, Pravatà E, Colosimo C, Sabatelli M, Masciullo M, Capone F, et al. MRI neurography findings in patients with idiopathic brachial plexopathy: correlations with clinical-neurophysiological data in eight consecutive cases. Intern Med. 2013; 52:2031–9.

25. Kulkantrakorn K, Suksasunee D. Clinical, electrodiagnostic, and outcome correlation in ALS patients in Thailand. J Clin Neurosci. 2017; 43:165–9.

26. Sener U, Martinez-Thompson J, Laughlin RS, Dimberg EL, Rubin DI. Needle electromyography and histopathologic correlation in myopathies. Muscle Nerve. 2019; 59:315–20.

27. Zambelis T. The usefulness of electrodiagnostic consultation in an outpatient clinic. J Clin Neurosci. 2019; 67:59–61.