Comparison of automated and manual F-wave latency measurements

OBJECTIVE F-waves are well-established clinical neurophysiological studies. F-wave analysis is now cumbersome limiting the usefulness of F-waves. This study evaluates the accuracy and reliability of an automated analysis method for F-wave latencies. METHODS F-waves following 20 supramaximal stimuli recorded from the extensor digitorum brevis muscle of 80 limbs (55 subjects) were analyzed. F-wave latencies were determined using a computer program developed by NEUROMetrix (Waltham, MA). These results were compared in a blinded fashion with manual measurements of the same datasets by a clinical neurophysiologist with established expertise in F-waves. The manual measurements were repeated once. RESULTS The yield rate of automated median F-wave latencies was 100% with a correlation coefficient (CC) of 0.996 when compared with manual assignment results. For individual F-wave latency measurements, comparable values were 90% and 0.977, respectively. The repeated manual measurements revealed a yield rate and CC for median latencies of 100% and 0.998, respectively, with comparable values for individual latency measurements of 95% and 0.992. CONCLUSIONS These results indicate the feasibility of a reliable computerized automated analysis of F-wave latencies. SIGNIFICANCE A reliable automated analysis of F-waves should add meaningfully to the value of these responses in clinical neurophysiology.

[1]  Comparison of motor conduction abnormalities in lumbosacral radiculopathy and axonal polyneuropathy , 1999, Muscle & nerve.

[2]  Xuan Kong,et al.  Detection of Lumbosacral Nerve Root Compression With a Novel Composite Nerve Conduction Measurement , 2002, Spine.

[3]  M. Fisher,et al.  Normative F wave values and the number of recorded F waves , 1994, Muscle & nerve.

[4]  C. Panayiotopoulos,et al.  F-waves in clinical neurophysiology: a review, methodological issues and overall value in peripheral neuropathies. , 1996, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[5]  Morris A. Fisher,et al.  F response latency determination , 1982 .

[6]  Michael H. Rivner.  The contemporary role of F‐wave studies: Reply by Dr. Rivner , 1998 .

[7]  Morris A. Fisher,et al.  The contemporary role of F‐wave studies: F‐wave studies: Clinical utility , 1998, Muscle & nerve.

[8]  G. Manzano,et al.  A comparison between different parameters in F-wave studies , 2001, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[9]  E Chroni,et al.  The importance of sample size for the estimation of F wave latency parameters in the peroneal nerve. , 1996, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[10]  Anthony C. Davison,et al.  Bootstrap Methods and Their Application , 1998 .

[11]  D Cros,et al.  Median neuropathy at the wrist: diagnostic utility of clinical findings and an automated electrodiagnostic device. , 2000, Journal of occupational and environmental medicine.

[12]  T. Tullberg,et al.  A preoperative and postoperative study of the accuracy and value of electrodiagnosis in patients with lumbosacral disc herniation. , 1993, Spine.

[13]  M. Toyokura,et al.  F-wave study in patients with lumbosacral radiculopathies. , 1997, Electromyography and clinical neurophysiology.