Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Neurology. 2016 Jan 19;86(3):218-23. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002292. Epub 2015 Dec 23.

Critically re-evaluating a common technique: Accuracy, reliability, and confirmation bias of EMG.

Author information

1
From the Department of Neurology (P.N., T.G., S.B.R.), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; the Department of Neurology (L.J.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; the Department of Neurology (M.W.), University of Washington, Seattle; the Department of Neurology (T.M.), University of California, Irvine; and the Department of Neurology (G.G.), University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City. pnarayan@bidmc.harvard.edu.
2
From the Department of Neurology (P.N., T.G., S.B.R.), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; the Department of Neurology (L.J.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; the Department of Neurology (M.W.), University of Washington, Seattle; the Department of Neurology (T.M.), University of California, Irvine; and the Department of Neurology (G.G.), University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

(1) To assess the diagnostic accuracy of EMG in radiculopathy. (2) To evaluate the intrarater reliability and interrater reliability of EMG in radiculopathy. (3) To assess the presence of confirmation bias in EMG.

METHODS:

Three experienced academic electromyographers interpreted 3 compact discs with 20 EMG videos (10 normal, 10 radiculopathy) in a blinded, standardized fashion without information regarding the nature of the study. The EMGs were interpreted 3 times (discs A, B, C) 1 month apart. Clinical information was provided only with disc C. Intrarater reliability was calculated by comparing interpretations in discs A and B, interrater reliability by comparing interpretation between reviewers. Confirmation bias was estimated by the difference in correct interpretations when clinical information was provided.

RESULTS:

Sensitivity was similar to previous reports (77%, confidence interval [CI] 63%-90%); specificity was 71%, CI 56%-85%. Intrarater reliability was good (κ 0.61, 95% CI 0.41-0.81); interrater reliability was lower (κ 0.53, CI 0.35-0.71). There was no substantial confirmation bias when clinical information was provided (absolute difference in correct responses 2.2%, CI -13.3% to 17.7%); the study lacked precision to exclude moderate confirmation bias.

CONCLUSIONS:

This study supports that (1) serial EMG studies should be performed by the same electromyographer since intrarater reliability is better than interrater reliability; (2) knowledge of clinical information does not bias EMG interpretation substantially; (3) EMG has moderate diagnostic accuracy for radiculopathy with modest specificity and electromyographers should exercise caution interpreting mild abnormalities.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE:

This study provides Class III evidence that EMG has moderate diagnostic accuracy and specificity for radiculopathy.

PMID:
26701380
PMCID:
PMC4733154
DOI:
10.1212/WNL.0000000000002292
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center