Nirkko A C, Rösler K M, Hess C W
Department of Neurology, University of Berne, Inselspital, Switzerland.
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1995 Feb;97(1):1-10. doi: 10.1016/0924-980x(94)00248-6.
In this prospective study, automated interference pattern analysis (IPA, "Willison analysis", modified by Stålberg et al. 1983) was compared to the quantitative evaluation of mean motor unit potential duration (QMUP) in 239 muscles from consecutive, unselected patients. The sensitivity and specificity of both methods were calculated with respect to the clinically derived final neurological diagnosis, with histology available for 120 examinations. Whereas specificities were not different for the methods, the sensitivity for detection of abnormal vs. normal was 49% for QMUP and 74% for IPA (P < 0.001). The sensitivity for detection of myopathy or neuropathy was 46% or 38% for QMUP and 75% (P < 0.001) or 53% (P < 0.05) for IPA. Thus, in all instances, IPA had superior sensitivity with unchanged specificity as compared to QMUP. The results of a rapid and purely qualitative visual MUP assessment were statistically not different from QMUP. Although widely used, neither of these methods has been evaluated for its reliability in unselected patients with various grades of disease. Our results indicate that in a routine setting, the best diagnostic strategy might be the automated IPA, which can be quickly obtained in several muscles, followed by muscle biopsy in unclear cases.
在这项前瞻性研究中,我们将自动干涉图样分析(IPA,“威利森分析”,由斯塔尔伯格等人于1983年修改)与对连续入选的未经过挑选的患者的239块肌肉的平均运动单位电位持续时间(QMUP)的定量评估进行了比较。两种方法的敏感性和特异性是根据临床得出的最终神经学诊断来计算的,120次检查中有组织学检查结果。虽然两种方法的特异性没有差异,但QMUP检测异常与正常情况的敏感性为49%,而IPA为74%(P<0.001)。QMUP检测肌病或神经病的敏感性为46%或38%,而IPA为75%(P<0.001)或53%(P<0.05)。因此,在所有情况下,与QMUP相比,IPA具有更高的敏感性且特异性不变。快速且纯粹定性的视觉运动单位电位评估结果在统计学上与QMUP没有差异。尽管这些方法被广泛使用,但尚未对其在不同疾病程度的未经过挑选的患者中的可靠性进行评估。我们的结果表明,在常规情况下,最佳的诊断策略可能是自动IPA,它可以在几块肌肉中快速获得,对于不明确的病例随后进行肌肉活检。