American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine guidelines for outcome studies in electrodiagnostic medicine

Muscle and Nerve

Volumn 19, Issue 12, 1996, Pages 1626-1635

  Jablecki, Charles K ^a   Andary, Michael T ^a   Di Benedetto, Margarete ^a   Horowitz, Steven H ^a   Marino, Ralph J ^a   Rosenbaum, Richard B ^a   Shields Jr , Robert W ^a   Stevens, J Clarke ^a   Williams, Faren H ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

electrodiagnostic medicine; guidelines; outcome studies

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ELECTRODIAGNOSIS; HUMAN; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NEUROMUSCULAR DISEASE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY OF LIFE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ASSOCIATION; ELECTRODIAGNOSIS; HUMANS; NEUROMUSCULAR DISEASES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); UNITED STATES;

EID: 0029819647     PISSN: 0148639X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4598(199612)19:12<1626::AID-MUS18>3.0.CO;2-P     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. American Medical Association: Guidelines for Permanent Impairment, 4th ed. Chicago, IL, American Medical Association, 1993. Comment: The fourth edition continues an activity begun almost four decades ago by the AMA to estimate objectively the degree of impairment of organ systems and to convert the data to an estimate of impairment of the whole person. The sections on the Musculoskeletal System (Chapter 3) and Nervous System (Chapter 4) contain techniques for systematic measurements of sensory deficits, and range of joint motions to compare to values from reference populations. The AMA Guidelines are widely accepted in the United to determine impairment ratings. The American Association of Disability Evaluating Physicians (AADEP, 1-800-456-6095) sponsors a training course for physicians in the AMA Guidelines.
2. Anderson C: Measuring what works in health care [editorial]. Science 1994;263:1080-1082. Comment: In 1989, Congress created and funded the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) to conduct outcomes research. Initially attention was directed toward analysis of database collected through nonrandomized "natural experiments" to find "what really works in medicine." However, hidden biases can invalidate the results and database outcome studies are not a substitute for randomized clinical trials.
3. Bergner M, Bobbit RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS: The sickness impact profile development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981:19:787-805. Comment: The sickness impact profile (SIP) questionnaire was developed as a general tool to measure quality of life. Test-retest reliability are investigated with different interviewers, forms, administrators, and patient types. Pearson correlation coefficients are r = 0.75-0.92 for overall score and t = 0.45-0.060 for actual items checked. Internal consistency from previous trials range from Cronbach alpha 0.94 to 0.97. Responsiveness is not addressed directly. Validity is addressed by construct validity with correlation to self-assessment of dysfunction (0.64-0.74), self-assessment of sickness (0.55-0.67), and National Health Interview Survey (0.57-0.60). Reference is made to previous validity trials that examined correlation to clinician assessments (0.30-0.50). Descriptive validity is addressed by attempting to show various portions of the SIP correlate differently to the measures of health in differing diseases, such as hip dysfunction, hyperthyroidism, and rheumatoid arthritis. To register for a copy of the SIP write Ann Skinner, Health Services Research Center, 624 North Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21205.
4. Deyo RA: Conservative therapy for low back pain: distinguishing useful from useless therapy. JAMA 1983;250:1057-1062. Comment: A landmark article describing general principles for evaluating outcome studies. The author develops and uses the principles to critique published studies of therapy for low-back pain.
5. Fairbank JCT, Mbaot JC, Davies JB, O'Brien JP: The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980;66:271-273.
6. Gill TM, Feinstein AR: A critical appraisal of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 1994;272:619-626. Comment: The authors review 75 articles randomly selected from two MEDLINE searches and from 579 references in a recent publication, "Quality-of-life bibliography" [Spilker B, Molinek FR Jr, Johnson KA, Simpson RL Jr, Tilson HH: Quality of life bibliography and indexes. Med Care 1990;28 (suppl 12):DS1-DS77]. Quality of life is the way patients perceive and react to their health status. The authors provide a set of ten investigator-specific and instrument-specific criteria for critiquing instruments that evaluate quality of life.
7. Gill TM, Feinstein AR: A critical appraisal of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 1994;272:619-626. Comment: The authors review 75 articles randomly selected from two MEDLINE searches and from 579 references in a recent publication, "Quality-of-life bibliography" [Spilker B, Molinek FR Jr, Johnson KA, Simpson RL Jr, Tilson HH: Quality of life bibliography and indexes. Med Care 1990;28 (suppl 12):DS1-DS77]. Quality of life is the way patients perceive and react to their health status. The authors provide a set of ten investigator-specific and instrument-specific criteria for critiquing instruments that evaluate quality of life.
8. Gillespie WJ, Daellenbach HG: Assessing cost effectiveness in orthopedic outcome studies. Orthopedics 1993;190:1276-1277. Comment: The authors argue that outcome studies that do not address the cost-effectiveness of treatment are of limited value in a society with limits on what is spent on health service provision.
9. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL: Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:622-629.
10. Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP: Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. J R Coll Gen Pract [Occas Pap] 1985;35:185-188.
11. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Williams J, Papp E: The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med 1981;15A:221-229.
12. Jablecki CK, Andary MT, So YT, Wilkins DE, Williams FH: Literature review of the usefulness of nerve conduction studies and electromyography for the evaluation of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 1993;16:1392-1414. Comment: The sensitivity and specificity of nerve conduction studies and electromyography for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome are evaluated by a critical review of the literature and form the basis for "Practice Parameter for Electrodiagnostic Studies in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome," Muscle Nerve 1993;16:1390-1391.
13. Jablecki CK, Andary MT, So YT, Wilkins DE, Williams FH: Literature review of the usefulness of nerve conduction studies and electromyography for the evaluation of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve 1993;16:1392-1414. Comment: The sensitivity and specificity of nerve conduction studies and electromyography for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome are evaluated by a critical review of the literature and form the basis for "Practice Parameter for Electrodiagnostic Studies in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome," Muscle Nerve 1993;16:1390-1391.
14. Jablecki CK, Berry C, Leach J: Survival prediction in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Muscle Nerve 1989;12:833-841.
15. Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Argyle M: The Nottingham Health Profile: an analysis of its sensitivity in differentiating illness. Soc Sci Med 1988;27:1411-1414.
16. Kaplan RM, Anderson JP: The general health policy model: an integrated approach, in Spilker B (ed): Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials. (131-149) New York, Raven Press, 1990. Comment: This is a general discussion of the history, goals, and construction of the Quality of Well-Being (QWB) general measure of preference-weighted quality of life. Validity of preference weights are discussed with cross-validation of preference groups r = 0.94. The authors refer readers to empiric studies showing correlation of preference rates between populations sampled and to previous work regarding reliability and validity of the QWB scale. Note: A short self-administered form which takes 8-10 minutes to complete is now available. To register for a copy of the QWB test, write Robert Kaplan, PhD, Division of Health Care Sciences, UCSD School of Medicine, 9500 Gilman Drive, #0622, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0622 or telephone 619-534-6058.
17. Kaplan RM, Coons SJ: Quality of Life Assessment: understanding its use as an outcome measure. Hosp Formulary 1993;23:486-498.
18. Kassirer JP, Angell M: Financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. N Engl J Med 1993;329:570-571.
19. Kassirer JP, Angell M: The Journal's policy on cost-effectiveness analyses. N Engl J Med 1994;331:669-670. Comment: This editorial expresses a concern that an incentive for bias may exist in industry-supported cost-effectiveness analyses of medical treatment.
20. Levine DW, Simmons BP, Koris JF, Daltroy LH, Hohl GG, Fossel AH, Katz JN: A self-administered questionnaire for assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg 1993;75-A:1585-1592. Comment: This article presents a disease-specific questionnaire to evaluate outcome in CTS. The test is defined to measure two different categories of outcome: severity of symptoms and functional status. Reproducibility is addressed with Pearson correlation coefficient, r = 0.91 and r = 0.93 of each category, respectively. Internal consistency of items is tested with Cronbach alpha 0.89 and 0.91. Responsiveness is addressed by following scores in patients before and after surgical treatment. Validity is measured by correlation of questionnaire scores with symptom severity, functional status, grip strength, pinch strength, two-point discrimination, Semmes-Weinstein monofilament testing, and median-nerve sensory conduction velocity. The article contains a copy of the questionnaire and a description of the scoring process.
21. Liang MH, Katz JN, Ginsburg KS: Chronic rheumatic disease, in Spilker B (ed): Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials. (441-458). New York, Raven Press, 1990.
22. McEwen J: The Nottingham Health Profile, in Walker SR, Rosser RM (eds): Quality of Life Assessment: Key Issues in the 1990s (100-121). Dordrecht, Germany, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993. Comment: The Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) questionnaire is a two-part general instrument to measure health status. Part I addresses problems associated with health and Part II addresses functional performance. Validation studies are listed which showed that the NHP scores tend to follow predicted patterns in various patients. One study is cited that evaluated responsiveness of the instrument to changes in a fracture patient as healing occurred. Reliability is tested in osteoarthritis and peripheral vascular disease patients. Spearman correlation coefficients ranged from 0.75 to 0.88 for part I. Cramer's C values ranged from 0.44 to 0.89 for part II. To obtain a complete copy of the questionnaire and scoring system, see references (Hunt 1981 and Hunt 1985).
23. Nagle D, Harris G, Foley M: Prospective review of 278 endoscopic carpal tunnel releases using the modified chow technique. Arthroscopy 1994;10:259-265.
24. Robinson LR, Rubner DE, Wahl PW, Fujimoto WY, Stolov WC: Effect of statistical methodology on normal limits in nerve conduction studies. Muscle Nerve 1991;14:1084-1090.
25. Rosenbaum RB, Ochoa JL: Carpal Tunnel Synrome and Other Disorders of the Median Nerve. Boston, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1993.
26. Rothman KJ, Michels KB: The continuing unethical use of placebo controls [editorial]. N Engl J Med 1994;331:394-396. Comment: This editorial expresses concern that orthodox therapy is withheld in studies for the sake of randomization.
27. Vernon H, Mior S: The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991; 14:409-415.
28. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-483. Comment: The authors present a discussion of the development of the SF-36™ Health Survey general instrument using the MOS long form as the primary criterion of validity. Correlation of the categories in the shortened questionnaire to the corresponding portion of the long form is documented. The reader is referred by the authors to previous work for the validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the MOS long form itself. To obtain a complete copy of and permission to use the questionnaire and scoring system, write the Medical Outcomes Trust, 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1014, Boston MA 02116-4313 (phone, 617-426-4046; fax 617-426-4131).
29. Wilson RS, Goetz CG: Neurologic illness, in Spilker B (ed): Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials (347-356). New York, Raven Press, 1990.