Utilization of Nerve Conduction Studies for the Diagnosis of Polyneuropathy in Patients with Diabetes: A Retrospective Analysis of a Large Patient Series
Free accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2008
Utilization of Nerve Conduction Studies for the Diagnosis of Polyneuropathy in Patients with Diabetes: A Retrospective Analysis of a Large Patient Series
Diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) is a disabling complication of diabetes mellitus. A population-based analysis of physician utilization of nerve conduction studies (NCS) for the assessment of DPN was conducted.
Methods:
All electrodiagnostic encounters over a 30-month period using a computer-based neurodiagnostic instrument linked to a data registry were analyzed retrospectively. The DPN case definition was abnormal sural and peroneal nerve conduction.
Results:
The study cohort consisted of a total of 63,779 electrodiagnostic encounters performed by 3468 physician practices. Primary care and internal medicine physicians represented 80.1% of the practices and accounted for 65.7% of the encounters. Endocrinologists represented 4.6% of the practices and 20.1% of the encounters. The demographics of patients were 52.7% female; 63.4 ± 11.8 (mean ± standard deviation) years (age); 168.1 ± 10.9 cm (height); 92.2 ± 22.6 kg (weight); and 32.6 ± 7.2 kg/m2 (body mass index). The most common peroneal abnormality was F-wave latency (33.6%). The sural nerve response latency and amplitude parameters had similar abnormality rates (58.3 and 62.7%). DPN was identified in 52.6% of the encounters; in another 19.3% no neuropathy was found.
Conclusions:
For over 70% of the patients, the specific diagnostic question of the presence of DPN was addressed by NCS with evidence-based criteria. The demographic features were strongly associated with risk of diabetes and DPN, suggesting that NCS were applied to appropriate demographic subgroups. The rate of DPN was also comparable to levels seen by academic electromyography laboratories. In 32.6% of the encounters the NCS suggested a posttest diagnosis other than DPN. This rate was similar to the results of referral to traditional electromyography laboratories. This study demonstrated that NCS using computer-based electrodiagnostic equipment was a suitable tool for the diagnosis of DPN. Furthermore, this technology permits examination of DPN in large populations.
DyckPJKratzKMKarnesJLLitchyWJKleinRPachJMWilsonDMO'BrienPCMeltonLJ3rdServiceFJ. The prevalence by staged severity of various types of diabetic neuropathy, retinopathy, and nephropathy in a population-based cohort: the Rochester Diabetic Neuropathy Study. Neurology. 1993; 43 (4): 817–24.
2.
GordoisASchuffhamPShearerAOglesbyATobianJA. The health care costs of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the US. Diabetes Care. 2003; 26 (6): 1790–95.
3.
SinghNArmstrongDGLipskyBA. Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. JAMA. 2005; 293 (2): 217–28.
4.
VinikEJHayesRPOglesbyABastyrEBarlowPFord-MolvikSLVinikAI. The development and validation of the Norfolk QOL-DN, a new measure of patients' perception of the effects of diabetes and diabetic neuropathy. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005; 7 (3): 497–508.
5.
SchwartzAVHillierTASellmeyerDEResnickHEGreggEEnsrudKESchreinerPJMargolisKLCauleyJANevittMCBlackDMCummingsSR. Older women with diabetes have a higher risk of falls: a prospective study. Diabetes Care. 2002; 25 (10): 1749–54.
6.
Writing Team for the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/ Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Research Group. Effect of intensive therapy on the microvascular complications of type 1 diabetes mellitus. JAMA. 2002; 287: 2563–69.
7.
VinikAIMehrabyanA. Diabetic neuropathies. Med Clin North Am. 2004; 88 (4): 947–99.
8.
HermanWHKennedyL. Underdiagnosis of peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005; 28 (6): 1480–1.
9.
PerkinsBAOlaleyeDZinmanBBrilV. Simple screening tests for peripheral neuropathy in the diabetes clinic. Diabetes Care. 2001; 24 (2): 250–6.
ThomsonFJMassonEABoultonAJ. The clinical diagnosis of sensory neuropathy in elderly people. Diabet Med. 1993; 10 (9): 843–6.
12.
BoultonAJVinikAIArezzoJCBrilVFeldmanELFreemanRMalikRAMaserRESosenkoJMZieglerD; American Diabetes Association. Diabetic neuropathies: a statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 28 (4): 956–62.
13.
GozaniSNFisherMAKongXMegerianJTRutkoveSB. Electrodiagnostic automation: principles and practice. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2005; 16 (4): 1015–32.
14.
MegerianJTKongXGozaniSN. Utility of nerve conduction studies for carpal tunnel syndrome by family medicine, primary care, and internal medicine physicians. J Am Board Fam Med. 2007; 20 (1): 60–4.
15.
LesserEAStarrJKongXMegerianJTGozaniSN. Point-of-service nerve conduction studies: an example of industry-driven disruptive innovation in health care. Perspect Biol Med. 2007; 50 (1): 40–53.
16.
VinikAIKongXMegerianJTGozaniSN. Diabetic nerve conduction abnormalities in the primary care setting. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2006; 8 (6): 654–62.
17.
PerkinsBAGrewalJNgENgoMBrilV. Validation of a novel point-of-care nerve conduction device for the detection of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy. Diabetes Care. 2006; 29 (9): 2023–7.
18.
EnglandJDGronsethGSFranklinGMillerRGAsburyAKCarterGTCohenJAFisherMAHowardJFKinsellaLJLatovNLewisRALowPASumnerAJ. Distal symmetric polyneuropathy: a definition for clinical research: report of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Electrodiagnostic Medicine, and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Neurology. 64 (2): 199–207.
19.
DillinghamTRPezzinLERiceJB. Electrodiagnostic services in the United States. Muscle Nerve. 2004; 29 (2): 198–204.
20.
EdwardsJKNorrisTE. Colonoscopy in rural communities: can family physicians perform the procedure with safe and efficacious results?. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004; 17 (5): 353–8.
21.
DillinghamTRPezzinLE. Under-recognition of polyneuropathy in persons with diabetes by nonphysician electrodiagnostic services providers. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 84 (6): 399–406.
22.
RotmanMBEnkvetchakulBVMegerianJTGozaniSN. Time course and predictors of median nerve conduction after carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg [Am]. 2004; 29 (3): 367–72.
23.
ElkowitzSJDubinNHRichardsBEWilgisEF. Clinical utility of portable versus traditional electrodiagnostic testing for diagnosing, evaluating, and treating carpal tunnel syndrome. Am J Orthop. 2005; 34 (8): 362–4.
24.
VinikAIBrilVLitchyWJPriceKL, Bastyr EJ 3rd; MBBQ Study Group. Sural sensory action potential identifies diabetic peripheral neuropathy responders to therapy. Muscle Nerve. 2005; 32 (5): 619–25.
25.
WellsMDMeyerAPEmleyMKongXSanchezRGozaniSN. Detection of lumbosacral nerve root compression with a novel composite nerve conduction measurement. Spine. 2002; 27 (24): 2811–9.
26.
GozaniSNKongXFisherMA. Factors influencing F-wave latency detection of lumbosacral root lesions using a detection theory based model. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006; 117 (7): 1449–57.
27.
FisherMABajwaRSomashekarKN. Lumbosarcral radiculopathties—the importance of EDX information other than needle electromyography. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 2007; 47 (7–8): 377–84.
28.
KothariMJBlakesleeMAReichweinRSimmonsZLogigianEL. Electrodiagnostic studies: are they useful in clinical practice?. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998; 79 (12): 1510–1.
29.
ChoSCSiao-Tick-ChongPSoYT. Clinical utility of electrodiagnostic consultation in suspected polyneuropathy. Muscle Nerve. 2004; 30 (5): 659–62.
30.
BergerARSharmaKLiptonRB. Comparison of motor conduction abnormalities in lumbosacral radiculopathy and axonal polyneuropathy. Muscle Nerve. 1999; 22 (8): 1053–7.
31.
GaedePVedelPLarsenNJensenGVParvingHHPedersenO. Multifactorial intervention and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348 (5): 383–93.
32.
CarringtonALShawJEVan SchieCHAbbottCAVileikyteLBoultonAJ. Can motor nerve conduction velocity predict foot problems in diabetic subjects over a 6-year outcome period?. Diabetes Care. 2002; 25 (11): 2010–5.
SolomonCGMansonJE. Obesity and mortality: a review of the epidemiologic data. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997; 66 (4 Suppl): 1044S–1050S.
35.
MoldJWVeselySKKeylBASchenkJBRobertsM. The prevalence, predictors, and consequences of peripheral sensory neuropathy in older patients. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004; 17 (5): 309–18.
36.
PerkinsBAOlaleyeDZinmanBBrilV. Simple screening tests for peripheral neuropathy in the diabetes clinic. Diabetes Care. 2001; 24 (2): 250–6.
37.
DyckPJKarnesJLDaubeJO'BrienPServiceFJ. Clinical and neuropathological criteria for the diagnosis and staging of diabetic polyneuropathy. Brain. 1985; 108 (Pt 4): 861–80.
38.
AndersenHStalbergEFalckB. F-wave latency, the most sensitive nerve conduction parameter in patients with diabetes mellitus. Muscle Nerve. 1997; 20 (10): 1296–302.
39.
JabreJFSalzsiederBTGnemiKE. Criterion validity of the NC-stat automated nerve conduction measurement instrument. Physiol Meas. 2007; 28 (1): 95–104.
40.
SalernoDFWernerRAAlbersJWBeckerMPArmstrongTJFranzblauA. Reliability of nerve conduction studies among active workers. Muscle Nerve. 1999; 22 (10): 1372–9.
41.
BirdSJBrownMJSpinoCWatlingSFoytHL. Value of repeated measures of nerve conduction and quantitative sensory testing in a diabetic neuropathy trial. Muscle Nerve. 2006; 34 (2): 214–24.
42.
JohnsenBFuglsang-FrederiksenAVingtoftSFawcettPLiguoriRNixWOtteGSchofieldIVelosoMVilaA. Inter- and intraobserver variation in the interpretation of electromyographic tests. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1995; 97 (6): 432–43.
43.
KendallRWernerRA. Interrater reliability of the needle examination in lumbosacral radiculopathy. Muscle Nerve. 2006; 34 (2): 238–41.
44.
ThibaultMWRobinsonLRFranklinGFulton-KehoeD. Use of the AAEM guidelines in electrodiagnosis of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 84 (4): 267–73.
