Premium
Sensitivity and specificity of single and combined clouds analyses compared with quantitative motor unit potential analysis
Author(s) -
Li Chuqiao,
Jiang Anqi,
Ding Qingyun,
Hu Youfang,
Wang Yao,
Tian Ge,
Wang Honghao,
Pan Suyue,
Cui Liying,
Peng Yu
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
muscle and nerve
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.025
H-Index - 145
eISSN - 1097-4598
pISSN - 0148-639X
DOI - 10.1002/mus.27106
Subject(s) - electromyography , sensitivity (control systems) , motor unit , gold standard (test) , physical medicine and rehabilitation , medicine , anatomy , engineering , electronic engineering
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.