Volume 63, Issue 2 pp. 225-230

CLINICAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Sensitivity and specificity of single and combined clouds analyses compared with quantitative motor unit potential analysis

Chuqiao Li MS,

Chuqiao Li MS

Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author

Anqi Jiang MS,

Anqi Jiang MS

Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author

Qingyun Ding MS,

Qingyun Ding MS

Department of Neurology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China

Search for more papers by this author

Youfang Hu MS,

Youfang Hu MS

Department of Neurology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China

Search for more papers by this author

Yao Wang MS,

Yao Wang MS

Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author

Ge Tian PhD,

Ge Tian PhD

Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author

Honghao Wang PhD,

Honghao Wang PhD

Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author

Suyue Pan MD, PhD,

Suyue Pan MD, PhD

Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author

Liying Cui MD, PhD,

Corresponding Author

Liying Cui MD, PhD

[email protected]

Department of Neurology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China

Correspondence

Yu Peng, Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.

Email: [email protected]

Liying Cui, Department of Neurology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China. Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

Yu Peng MD,

Corresponding Author

Yu Peng MD

[email protected]

Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Correspondence

Yu Peng, Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.

Email: [email protected]

Liying Cui, Department of Neurology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China. Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

Chuqiao Li MS,

Chuqiao Li MS

Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author

Anqi Jiang MS,

Anqi Jiang MS

Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author

Qingyun Ding MS,

Qingyun Ding MS

Department of Neurology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China

Search for more papers by this author

Youfang Hu MS,

Youfang Hu MS

Department of Neurology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China

Search for more papers by this author

Yao Wang MS,

Yao Wang MS

Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author

Ge Tian PhD,

Ge Tian PhD

Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author

Honghao Wang PhD,

Honghao Wang PhD

Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author

Suyue Pan MD, PhD,

Suyue Pan MD, PhD

Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Search for more papers by this author

Liying Cui MD, PhD,

Corresponding Author

Liying Cui MD, PhD

[email protected]

Department of Neurology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China

Correspondence

Yu Peng, Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.

Email: [email protected]

Liying Cui, Department of Neurology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China. Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

Yu Peng MD,

Corresponding Author

Yu Peng MD

[email protected]

Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Correspondence

Yu Peng, Department of Neurology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.

Email: [email protected]

Liying Cui, Department of Neurology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China. Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 24 October 2020

https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.27106

Citations: 1

Funding informationPresident Foundation of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Grant Number: 2017C029; Clinical Research Project of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Grant Number: 2018CR007.

Chuqiao Li and Anqi Jiang contributed equally to this study.

Funding information: Clinical Research Project of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Grant/Award Number: no. 2018CR007; President Foundation of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Grant/Award Number: no. 2017C029

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Introduction

Turns-amplitude, number of small segments (NSS)-activity, and envelope-activity clouds are three methods of electromyography (EMG) interference pattern analysis. Our objective was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of each individual cloud analysis and combined clouds analysis to compare with that of quantitative motor unit potential (QMUP) analysis.

Methods

A total of 379 muscles from 100 patients were analyzed by both QMUP and clouds analyses. Calculation of sensitivity and specificity was based on the clinical diagnosis as the “gold standard.”

Results

For discrimination of abnormal vs normal and neuropathic vs non-neuropathic, combined clouds analysis had greater sensitivity than QMUP analysis and any single cloud analysis, but there were no differences in specificity. For discrimination of myopathic vs non-myopathic, combined clouds analysis and single cloud analysis had greater sensitivity than QMUP analysis, but there were no differences in specificity.

Discussion

Combined clouds analysis was superior to QMUP and each single cloud analysis for distinguishing normal, myopathic, and neuropathic muscles.

5 CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Supporting Information

Filename

Description

mus27106-sup-0001-FigureS1.jpgJPEG image, 460 KB

FIGURE S1 IPA examples of tibialis anterior muscle from a young female. A, The result of individual turns-amplitude clouds analysis was myopathic, as there were 3 recordings out of 20 (>15%) outside of the cloud in the myopathic region. B, The result of individual NSS-activity clouds analysis was normal. C, The result of individual envelope-activity clouds analysis was normal, as there were only two recordings (<15%) out of the cloud. As the system setting of Keypoint adopted the linear regression of the log(envelope) vs the log(activity), the shape of envelope-activity cloud is closed at “zero,” which is a little different than Nandedkar's envelope-activity cloud. The result of combined clouds analysis for this muscle was myopathic by the criteria of “Any 1 in 3,” and normal by the criteria of “Any 2 in 3” and “All 3.” IPA, interference pattern analysis; NSS, number of small segments.

mus27106-sup-0002-FigureS2.jpgJPEG image, 457.7 KB

FIGURE S2 IPA examples of tibialis anterior muscle from another young female. A, The result of individual turns-amplitude clouds analysis was myopathic. B, The result of individual NSS-activity clouds analysis was neuropathic, as there were four recordings outside of the cloud in the neuropathic region and one recording outside of the cloud in the myopathic region. The difference was ≥3/20. C, The result of individual envelope-activity clouds analysis was myopathic, as there were five recordings outside of the cloud in the myopathic region and two recordings outside of the cloud in the neuropathic region. The difference was ≥3/20. In the combined clouds analysis of this muscle, as the result of NSS-activity cloud was the opposite of the other two, it canceled one of them out. So, the result of combined clouds analysis for this muscle was myopathic by the criteria of “Any 1 in 3,” and normal by the criteria of “Any 2 in 3” and “All 3.” This uncommon result explains how to categorize the muscle when there are contradictory records or clouds.

Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

REFERENCES

1Buchthal F, Rosenfalck P. Action potential parameters in different human muscles. Acta Psychiatr Neurol Scand. 1955; 30: 125-131.
10.1111/j.1600-0447.1955.tb06052.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2Rosenfalck P. Electromyography in normal subjects of different age. Meth Clin Neurophysiol. 1991; 2: 47.
Google Scholar
3Nirkko AC, Rösler KM, Hess CW. Sensitivity and specificity of needle electromyography: a prospective study comparing automated interference pattern analysis with single motor unit potential analysis. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1995; 97: 1-10.
10.1016/0924-980X(94)00248-6
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4Finsterer J. EMG-interference pattern analysis. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2001; 11: 231-246.
10.1016/S1050-6411(01)00006-2
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5Stålberg EV, Chu J, Bril V, Nandedkar SD, Stålberg S. Automatic analysis of the EMG interference pattern. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1983; 56: 672-681.
10.1016/0013-4694(83)90035-4
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6Nandedkar SD, Sanders DB, Stålberg EV. Simulation and analysis of the electromyographic interference pattern. Part II: activity, upper centile amplitude and number of small segments. Muscle Nerve. 1986; 9: 486-490.
10.1002/mus.880090603
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7Nandedkar SD, Sanders DB, Stålberg EV. Automatic analysis of the electromyographic interference pattern. Part I: development of quantitative features. Muscle Nerve. 1986; 9: 431-439.
10.1002/mus.880090508
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8Nandedkar SD, Sanders DB, Stålberg EV. Automatic analysis of the electromyographic interference pattern. Part II: findings in control subjects and in some neuromuscular diseases. Muscle Nerve. 1986; 9: 491-500.
10.1002/mus.880090604
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9Peng Y, Zhang SM, Wu MY, Wang Y, Pan SY. Developing turns-amplitude clouds for healthy Chinese: reference values and influence factors. Chin J Neurol. 2018; 51: 824-830.
Google Scholar
10Li C, Jiang A, Wu M, et al. Developing normal number of small segments-activity clouds of the electromyography interference pattern. Muscle Nerve. 2020; 61(4): 485-490. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.26806.
10.1002/mus.26806
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11Buchthal F, Kamieniecka Z. The diagnostic yield of quantified electromyography and quantified muscle biopsy in neuromuscular disorders. Muscle Nerve. 1982; 5: 265-280.
10.1002/mus.880050403
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12Fuglsang-Frederiksen A, Scheel U, Buchthal F. Diagnostic yield of analysis of the pattern of electrical activity and of individual motor unit potentials in myopathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1976; 39: 742-750.
10.1136/jnnp.39.8.742
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13Daube JR. AAEM minimonograph #11: needle examination in clinical electromyography. Muscle Nerve. 1991; 14: 685-700.
10.1002/mus.880140802
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14Liguori R, Dahl K, Fuglsang-Frederiksen A, Trojaborg W. Turns-amplitude analysis of the electromyographic recruitment pattern disregarding force measurement. II. Findings in patients with neuromuscular disorders. Muscle Nerve. 1992; 15: 1319-1324.
10.1002/mus.880151205
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15Sonoo M, Stålberg E. The ability of MUP parameters to discriminate between normal and neurogenic MUPs in concentric EMG: analysis of the MUP "thickness" and the proposal of "size index". Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1993; 89: 291-303.
10.1016/0168-5597(93)90068-Z
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume63, Issue2

February 2021

Pages 225-230

Sensitivity and specificity of single and combined clouds analyses compared with quantitative motor unit potential analysis

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

5 CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Supporting Information

REFERENCES

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Sensitivity and specificity of single and combined clouds analyses compared with quantitative motor unit potential analysis

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

5 CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Supporting Information

REFERENCES

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information