Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Brain Stimul. 2017 Nov - Dec;10(6):1102-1111. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2017.07.011. Epub 2017 Jul 31.

The reliability of commonly used electrophysiology measures.

Author information

1
Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
2
College of Health, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
3
Department of Neurology, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany; Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
4
Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
5
APHP Department of Genetics, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle, INSERM U1127, CNRS UMR7225, Sorbonne Universités - UPMC Université Paris VI UMR_S1127, Paris, France.
6
Department of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Centre, 2300RC Leiden, The Netherlands.
7
Centre for Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics, Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, 950 West 28th Avenue, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4H4, Canada.
8
Huntington's Disease Research Centre, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, UK.
9
Department of Neurology, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany. Electronic address: michael.orth@uni-ulm.de.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Electrophysiological measures can help understand brain function both in healthy individuals and in the context of a disease. Given the amount of information that can be extracted from these measures and their frequent use, it is essential to know more about their inherent reliability.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS:

To understand the reliability of electrophysiology measures in healthy individuals. We hypothesized that measures of threshold and latency would be the most reliable and least susceptible to methodological differences between study sites.

METHODS:

Somatosensory evoked potentials from 112 control participants; long-latency reflexes, transcranial magnetic stimulation with resting and active motor thresholds, motor evoked potential latencies, input/output curves, and short-latency sensory afferent inhibition and facilitation from 84 controls were collected at 3 visits over 24 months at 4 Track-On HD study sites. Reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients for absolute agreement, and the effects of reliability on statistical power are demonstrated for different sample sizes and study designs.

RESULTS:

Measures quantifying latencies, thresholds, and evoked responses at high stimulator intensities had the highest reliability, and required the smallest sample sizes to adequately power a study. Very few between-site differences were detected.

CONCLUSIONS:

Reliability and susceptibility to between-site differences should be evaluated for electrophysiological measures before including them in study designs. Levels of reliability vary substantially across electrophysiological measures, though there are few between-site differences. To address this, reliability should be used in conjunction with theoretical calculations to inform sample size and ensure studies are adequately powered to detect true change in measures of interest.

KEYWORDS:

Motor thresholds; Reliability; SEP; Statistical power; Study design; Transcranial magnetic stimulation

PMID:
28807846
DOI:
10.1016/j.brs.2017.07.011
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center