The value of electrodiagnostic consultation for patients with upper extremity nerve complaints

A prospective comparison with the history and physical examination

Andrew J. Haig, Huey-Ming Tzeng, Diane Belongia LeBreck

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether electrodiagnostic testing changes diagnostic certainty compared with a detailed history and physical examination, and whether interactions between medical information, the extent of testing, and diagnostic certainty imply a need for advanced medical knowledge on the part of the tester. Design: Prospective observation. Setting: University orthopedic department and small community hospital electrodiagnostic laboratories. Patients: Two hundred fifty-five consecutive referrals for upper extremity nerve complaints. Outcome Measures: Diagnosis, diagnostic confidence, and severity of neurologic lesion were coded after standardized history and physical and after electrodiagnostic testing. Results: Electrodiagnostic testing substantially altered 42% of diagnoses, confirmed 37%, and did not clarify 21%. The extent of testing correlated with the size of the differential diagnosis, the number of previous hospitalizations, and the number of other medical problems. Confidence in final diagnoses correlated positively with severity of the lesion, but negatively with the size of the differential diagnosis and the number of painful body areas. Hospitalizations and medical problems also tended towards negative correlations. Conclusions: This study, in which all electrodiagnostics, histories, and physical examinations were performed by a single physician, suggests that electrodiagnosis substantially alters clinical impressions in a large percentage of patients. The complex relationship between clinical information, the extent of testing, and final diagnostic certainty suggests that specialized medical knowledge is required for accurate electrodiagnosis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1273-1281
Number of pages9
JournalArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume80
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1999
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Electrodiagnosis
Upper Extremity
Physical Examination
Referral and Consultation
History
Hospitalization
Differential Diagnosis
Hospital Laboratories
Community Hospital
Nervous System
Orthopedics
Observation
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Physicians

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Rehabilitation

Cite this

@article{06191c5b2b1e48e4979e28a4b4e0c5ab,
title = "The value of electrodiagnostic consultation for patients with upper extremity nerve complaints: A prospective comparison with the history and physical examination",
abstract = "Objectives: To determine whether electrodiagnostic testing changes diagnostic certainty compared with a detailed history and physical examination, and whether interactions between medical information, the extent of testing, and diagnostic certainty imply a need for advanced medical knowledge on the part of the tester. Design: Prospective observation. Setting: University orthopedic department and small community hospital electrodiagnostic laboratories. Patients: Two hundred fifty-five consecutive referrals for upper extremity nerve complaints. Outcome Measures: Diagnosis, diagnostic confidence, and severity of neurologic lesion were coded after standardized history and physical and after electrodiagnostic testing. Results: Electrodiagnostic testing substantially altered 42{\%} of diagnoses, confirmed 37{\%}, and did not clarify 21{\%}. The extent of testing correlated with the size of the differential diagnosis, the number of previous hospitalizations, and the number of other medical problems. Confidence in final diagnoses correlated positively with severity of the lesion, but negatively with the size of the differential diagnosis and the number of painful body areas. Hospitalizations and medical problems also tended towards negative correlations. Conclusions: This study, in which all electrodiagnostics, histories, and physical examinations were performed by a single physician, suggests that electrodiagnosis substantially alters clinical impressions in a large percentage of patients. The complex relationship between clinical information, the extent of testing, and final diagnostic certainty suggests that specialized medical knowledge is required for accurate electrodiagnosis.",
author = "Haig, {Andrew J.} and Huey-Ming Tzeng and LeBreck, {Diane Belongia}",
year = "1999",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90029-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "80",
pages = "1273--1281",
journal = "Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation",
issn = "0003-9993",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The value of electrodiagnostic consultation for patients with upper extremity nerve complaints

T2 - A prospective comparison with the history and physical examination

AU - Haig, Andrew J.

AU - Tzeng, Huey-Ming

AU - LeBreck, Diane Belongia

PY - 1999/1/1

Y1 - 1999/1/1

N2 - Objectives: To determine whether electrodiagnostic testing changes diagnostic certainty compared with a detailed history and physical examination, and whether interactions between medical information, the extent of testing, and diagnostic certainty imply a need for advanced medical knowledge on the part of the tester. Design: Prospective observation. Setting: University orthopedic department and small community hospital electrodiagnostic laboratories. Patients: Two hundred fifty-five consecutive referrals for upper extremity nerve complaints. Outcome Measures: Diagnosis, diagnostic confidence, and severity of neurologic lesion were coded after standardized history and physical and after electrodiagnostic testing. Results: Electrodiagnostic testing substantially altered 42% of diagnoses, confirmed 37%, and did not clarify 21%. The extent of testing correlated with the size of the differential diagnosis, the number of previous hospitalizations, and the number of other medical problems. Confidence in final diagnoses correlated positively with severity of the lesion, but negatively with the size of the differential diagnosis and the number of painful body areas. Hospitalizations and medical problems also tended towards negative correlations. Conclusions: This study, in which all electrodiagnostics, histories, and physical examinations were performed by a single physician, suggests that electrodiagnosis substantially alters clinical impressions in a large percentage of patients. The complex relationship between clinical information, the extent of testing, and final diagnostic certainty suggests that specialized medical knowledge is required for accurate electrodiagnosis.

AB - Objectives: To determine whether electrodiagnostic testing changes diagnostic certainty compared with a detailed history and physical examination, and whether interactions between medical information, the extent of testing, and diagnostic certainty imply a need for advanced medical knowledge on the part of the tester. Design: Prospective observation. Setting: University orthopedic department and small community hospital electrodiagnostic laboratories. Patients: Two hundred fifty-five consecutive referrals for upper extremity nerve complaints. Outcome Measures: Diagnosis, diagnostic confidence, and severity of neurologic lesion were coded after standardized history and physical and after electrodiagnostic testing. Results: Electrodiagnostic testing substantially altered 42% of diagnoses, confirmed 37%, and did not clarify 21%. The extent of testing correlated with the size of the differential diagnosis, the number of previous hospitalizations, and the number of other medical problems. Confidence in final diagnoses correlated positively with severity of the lesion, but negatively with the size of the differential diagnosis and the number of painful body areas. Hospitalizations and medical problems also tended towards negative correlations. Conclusions: This study, in which all electrodiagnostics, histories, and physical examinations were performed by a single physician, suggests that electrodiagnosis substantially alters clinical impressions in a large percentage of patients. The complex relationship between clinical information, the extent of testing, and final diagnostic certainty suggests that specialized medical knowledge is required for accurate electrodiagnosis.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032828677&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032828677&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90029-1

DO - 10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90029-1

M3 - Article

VL - 80

SP - 1273

EP - 1281

JO - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

JF - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

SN - 0003-9993

IS - 10

ER -