Invited review: Limitations in predicting pathologic abnormality of nerves from the EMG examination

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

31 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Although electromyography (EMG = nerve conduction and needle electromyographic examination) is among the most sensitive and reliable approaches to detect and even to characterize certain aspects of nerve disease, it is important for physicians to appreciate that EMG has limited value in (1) inferring symptoms and neuropathic deficit (particularly the overall deficit recorded by clinical neurologists), (2) inferring involvement of small-diameter fibers, (3) inferring underlying biochemical or other pathophysiologic derangement, (4) inferring the presence and type and pathologic alterations in single fibers or Schwann cells, or (5) inferring interstitial pathologic abnormality. For 1 and 2, an adequate neurologic history and examination is needed. For 2, quantitative sensory (QSE) and quantitative autonomic (QAE) examination and histologic study of nerve often are especially helpful. For 3, clinical evaluation and a variety of laboratory examinations are needed. For 4 and 5, clinical evaluation and/or pathologic study of nerve may be needed. Electromyography has deservedly gained considerable acceptance as a worthwhile evaluative procedure for the study of neuromuscular disease. For some purposes, however, it is of limited value and other evaluative procedures are more informative. In this review, I trace the history of some of the reasons for the popularity of EMG and highlight some of its limitations. The purpose is not to diminish EMG or to elevate the procedure of nerve biopsy, rather to provide a conceptual framework for how these techniques and the clinical and other laboratory examinations can be used together in the assessment and follow-up of neuropathy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)371-375
Number of pages5
JournalMuscle and Nerve
Volume13
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1990

Fingerprint

Electromyography
History
Neuromuscular Diseases
Clinical Laboratory Techniques
Schwann Cells
Neural Conduction
Neurologic Examination
Needles
Physicians
Biopsy
Neurologists

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Neuroscience(all)

Cite this

Invited review : Limitations in predicting pathologic abnormality of nerves from the EMG examination. / Dyck, Peter J.

In: Muscle and Nerve, Vol. 13, No. 5, 1990, p. 371-375.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4eb2b04ae5b6463fb5f471863e23ebd1,
title = "Invited review: Limitations in predicting pathologic abnormality of nerves from the EMG examination",
abstract = "Although electromyography (EMG = nerve conduction and needle electromyographic examination) is among the most sensitive and reliable approaches to detect and even to characterize certain aspects of nerve disease, it is important for physicians to appreciate that EMG has limited value in (1) inferring symptoms and neuropathic deficit (particularly the overall deficit recorded by clinical neurologists), (2) inferring involvement of small-diameter fibers, (3) inferring underlying biochemical or other pathophysiologic derangement, (4) inferring the presence and type and pathologic alterations in single fibers or Schwann cells, or (5) inferring interstitial pathologic abnormality. For 1 and 2, an adequate neurologic history and examination is needed. For 2, quantitative sensory (QSE) and quantitative autonomic (QAE) examination and histologic study of nerve often are especially helpful. For 3, clinical evaluation and a variety of laboratory examinations are needed. For 4 and 5, clinical evaluation and/or pathologic study of nerve may be needed. Electromyography has deservedly gained considerable acceptance as a worthwhile evaluative procedure for the study of neuromuscular disease. For some purposes, however, it is of limited value and other evaluative procedures are more informative. In this review, I trace the history of some of the reasons for the popularity of EMG and highlight some of its limitations. The purpose is not to diminish EMG or to elevate the procedure of nerve biopsy, rather to provide a conceptual framework for how these techniques and the clinical and other laboratory examinations can be used together in the assessment and follow-up of neuropathy.",
author = "Dyck, {Peter J}",
year = "1990",
doi = "10.1002/mus.880130502",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "371--375",
journal = "Muscle and Nerve",
issn = "0148-639X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Invited review

T2 - Limitations in predicting pathologic abnormality of nerves from the EMG examination

AU - Dyck, Peter J

PY - 1990

Y1 - 1990

N2 - Although electromyography (EMG = nerve conduction and needle electromyographic examination) is among the most sensitive and reliable approaches to detect and even to characterize certain aspects of nerve disease, it is important for physicians to appreciate that EMG has limited value in (1) inferring symptoms and neuropathic deficit (particularly the overall deficit recorded by clinical neurologists), (2) inferring involvement of small-diameter fibers, (3) inferring underlying biochemical or other pathophysiologic derangement, (4) inferring the presence and type and pathologic alterations in single fibers or Schwann cells, or (5) inferring interstitial pathologic abnormality. For 1 and 2, an adequate neurologic history and examination is needed. For 2, quantitative sensory (QSE) and quantitative autonomic (QAE) examination and histologic study of nerve often are especially helpful. For 3, clinical evaluation and a variety of laboratory examinations are needed. For 4 and 5, clinical evaluation and/or pathologic study of nerve may be needed. Electromyography has deservedly gained considerable acceptance as a worthwhile evaluative procedure for the study of neuromuscular disease. For some purposes, however, it is of limited value and other evaluative procedures are more informative. In this review, I trace the history of some of the reasons for the popularity of EMG and highlight some of its limitations. The purpose is not to diminish EMG or to elevate the procedure of nerve biopsy, rather to provide a conceptual framework for how these techniques and the clinical and other laboratory examinations can be used together in the assessment and follow-up of neuropathy.

AB - Although electromyography (EMG = nerve conduction and needle electromyographic examination) is among the most sensitive and reliable approaches to detect and even to characterize certain aspects of nerve disease, it is important for physicians to appreciate that EMG has limited value in (1) inferring symptoms and neuropathic deficit (particularly the overall deficit recorded by clinical neurologists), (2) inferring involvement of small-diameter fibers, (3) inferring underlying biochemical or other pathophysiologic derangement, (4) inferring the presence and type and pathologic alterations in single fibers or Schwann cells, or (5) inferring interstitial pathologic abnormality. For 1 and 2, an adequate neurologic history and examination is needed. For 2, quantitative sensory (QSE) and quantitative autonomic (QAE) examination and histologic study of nerve often are especially helpful. For 3, clinical evaluation and a variety of laboratory examinations are needed. For 4 and 5, clinical evaluation and/or pathologic study of nerve may be needed. Electromyography has deservedly gained considerable acceptance as a worthwhile evaluative procedure for the study of neuromuscular disease. For some purposes, however, it is of limited value and other evaluative procedures are more informative. In this review, I trace the history of some of the reasons for the popularity of EMG and highlight some of its limitations. The purpose is not to diminish EMG or to elevate the procedure of nerve biopsy, rather to provide a conceptual framework for how these techniques and the clinical and other laboratory examinations can be used together in the assessment and follow-up of neuropathy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025300297&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025300297&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/mus.880130502

DO - 10.1002/mus.880130502

M3 - Article

C2 - 2161077

AN - SCOPUS:0025300297

VL - 13

SP - 371

EP - 375

JO - Muscle and Nerve

JF - Muscle and Nerve

SN - 0148-639X

IS - 5

ER -