Helena Brøckner, Sarah Nygaard Jensen, Kristian Hennings, Carsten Dahl Mørch
{"title":"Test-Retest Reliability of Perception Threshold Estimation in Small Cutaneous Nerve Fibers: A Methodological Investigation.","authors":"Helena Brøckner, Sarah Nygaard Jensen, Kristian Hennings, Carsten Dahl Mørch","doi":"10.1002/mus.70031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction/aims: </strong>Nerve excitability testing of small cutaneous nerve fibers has been proposed as a new tool for investigating the underlying mechanisms of small fiber neuropathy. These assessments may be performed using perception threshold tracking with pin-electrodes that preferentially activate small cutaneous nerve fibers. In this study, the test-retest reliability of two perception threshold (PT) algorithms: the Psi method and the Method of Limits (MoL), was compared.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Twenty healthy subjects completed the study. Electrical stimulation was applied using a pin electrode, and the PT to a 1 ms rectangular pulse was estimated six times during two sessions separated by 1 week. The test-retest reliability was evaluated by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the coefficient of variation (CV). The two PT algorithms were compared by limits of agreement (LoA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ICC indicated better within-session reliability (Psi: 0.77 and MoL: 0.81) than between-session reliability (Psi: 0.58 and MoL: 0.50) regardless of the algorithm used. The PTs were significantly lower when measured with the MoL (0.88 mA) compared to the estimates by the Psi (1.12 mA) method.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The estimation of PT can be reliably assessed, especially within-session, with both the MoL and Psi methods. This allows for PT tracking, where PTs to different electrical stimulation provide an estimation of nerve fiber excitability. PT values obtained using different methods are not directly comparable.</p>","PeriodicalId":18968,"journal":{"name":"Muscle & Nerve","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Muscle & Nerve","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.70031","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction/aims: Nerve excitability testing of small cutaneous nerve fibers has been proposed as a new tool for investigating the underlying mechanisms of small fiber neuropathy. These assessments may be performed using perception threshold tracking with pin-electrodes that preferentially activate small cutaneous nerve fibers. In this study, the test-retest reliability of two perception threshold (PT) algorithms: the Psi method and the Method of Limits (MoL), was compared.
Method: Twenty healthy subjects completed the study. Electrical stimulation was applied using a pin electrode, and the PT to a 1 ms rectangular pulse was estimated six times during two sessions separated by 1 week. The test-retest reliability was evaluated by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the coefficient of variation (CV). The two PT algorithms were compared by limits of agreement (LoA).
Results: The ICC indicated better within-session reliability (Psi: 0.77 and MoL: 0.81) than between-session reliability (Psi: 0.58 and MoL: 0.50) regardless of the algorithm used. The PTs were significantly lower when measured with the MoL (0.88 mA) compared to the estimates by the Psi (1.12 mA) method.
Discussion: The estimation of PT can be reliably assessed, especially within-session, with both the MoL and Psi methods. This allows for PT tracking, where PTs to different electrical stimulation provide an estimation of nerve fiber excitability. PT values obtained using different methods are not directly comparable.
期刊介绍:
Muscle & Nerve is an international and interdisciplinary publication of original contributions, in both health and disease, concerning studies of the muscle, the neuromuscular junction, the peripheral motor, sensory and autonomic neurons, and the central nervous system where the behavior of the peripheral nervous system is clarified. Appearing monthly, Muscle & Nerve publishes clinical studies and clinically relevant research reports in the fields of anatomy, biochemistry, cell biology, electrophysiology and electrodiagnosis, epidemiology, genetics, immunology, pathology, pharmacology, physiology, toxicology, and virology. The Journal welcomes articles and reports on basic clinical electrophysiology and electrodiagnosis. We expedite some papers dealing with timely topics to keep up with the fast-moving pace of science, based on the referees'' recommendation.