Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2017
Why averaging multiple MUNIX measures in the longitudinal assessment of patients with ALS?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Escorcio-Bezerra Marcio Luiz, Abrahao Agessandro, Santos-Neto Denizart, de Oliveira Braga Nadia Iandoli, Oliveira Acary Souza Bulle, Manzano Gilberto Mastrocola
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of averaging multiple MUNIX trials on the follow-up of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
METHODS: We determined the percent relative change (%RC) of MUNIX, in healthy subjects and patients with ALS, by subtracting the MUNIX value in the second visit from the first. Both the mean of a set of three MUNIX (mean-MUNIX) and the first MUNIX sample (single-MUNIX) were evaluated. Then, we studied the sensitivity to detect relative changes over time and the statistical dispersion of the %RC from these two parameters.
RESULTS: We found that the mean-MUNIX %RC has lower mean coefficient of variation than the single-MUNIX %RC in all muscles. The mean-MUNIX also resulted in more ALS patients with significant %RC, i.e., outside reference limits.
CONCLUSION: The mean-MUNIX resulted in less dispersed values of %RC in patients with ALS and thus, increased the precision of the technique. The mean-MUNIX resulted also in an increase in the sensitivity to track changes over time in these patients.
SIGNIFICANCE: The mean-MUNIX should be considered in any ALS follow-up study as a more reliable approach and as a way of potentially reducing the sample size needed for the study.
METHODS: We determined the percent relative change (%RC) of MUNIX, in healthy subjects and patients with ALS, by subtracting the MUNIX value in the second visit from the first. Both the mean of a set of three MUNIX (mean-MUNIX) and the first MUNIX sample (single-MUNIX) were evaluated. Then, we studied the sensitivity to detect relative changes over time and the statistical dispersion of the %RC from these two parameters.
RESULTS: We found that the mean-MUNIX %RC has lower mean coefficient of variation than the single-MUNIX %RC in all muscles. The mean-MUNIX also resulted in more ALS patients with significant %RC, i.e., outside reference limits.
CONCLUSION: The mean-MUNIX resulted in less dispersed values of %RC in patients with ALS and thus, increased the precision of the technique. The mean-MUNIX resulted also in an increase in the sensitivity to track changes over time in these patients.
SIGNIFICANCE: The mean-MUNIX should be considered in any ALS follow-up study as a more reliable approach and as a way of potentially reducing the sample size needed for the study.