{"title":"单脉冲经颅磁刺激(TMS)测量急性缺血性脑卒中患者运动皮质活动的重测信度和一致性。","authors":"Busk Henriette, Nilsen Marianne, Pedersen Julie Rønne, Kristensen Malene Glavin, Kjær Troels Wesenberg, Skou Søren Thorgaard, Wienecke Troels","doi":"10.1177/26331055221145002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is often used to examine neurophysiology. We aimed to investigate the inter-rater reliability and agreement of single pulse TMS in hospitalised acute ischemic stroke patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-one patients with first-time acute ischemic stroke (median age 72 (IQR 64-75), 35% females) underwent TMS motor threshold (MT) assessment in 4 muscles bilaterally, conducted by 1 of 2 physiotherapists. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using a two-way random effects model (2,1) absolute agreement-type Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) and Smallest Detectable Change (SDC) were used to evaluate agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Reliability, SEM, and SDC of TMS was found to be moderate in right opponens pollicis (0.78 [CI 95% 0.55-0.89], SEM: 4.51, SDC: 12.51), good in right vastus medialis and tibial anterior (0.88 [CI 95% 0.72-0.96], SEM: 2.89, SDC: 8.01 and 0.88 [CI 95% 0.76-0.94], SEM: 2.88, SDC: 7.98 respectively), and excellent in right and left biceps brachii (0.98 [CI 95% 0.96-0.99], SEM: 1.79 SDC: 4.96, and 0.94 [CI 95% 0.89-0.97], SEM: 2.17 SDC: 6.01), opponens pollicis (0.92 [CI 95% 0.83-0.96], SEM: 2.68 SDC: 8.26, vastus medialis (0.92 [CI 95% 0.84-0.96], SEM: 2.87 SDC: 7.95), and tibial anterior (0.93 [CI 95% 0.86-0.96], SEM: 2.51 SDC: 6.95).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The TMS demonstrated moderate to excellent inter-rater reliability confirming the ability of these measures to reliably discriminate between individuals in the current study sample. Improvements of less than 4.96 to 12.51 could be a result of measurement error and may therefore not be considered a true change.</p>","PeriodicalId":36527,"journal":{"name":"Neuroscience Insights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/78/b0/10.1177_26331055221145002.PMC9791285.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Test-Retest Reliability and Agreement of Single Pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) for Measuring Activity in Motor Cortex in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke.\",\"authors\":\"Busk Henriette, Nilsen Marianne, Pedersen Julie Rønne, Kristensen Malene Glavin, Kjær Troels Wesenberg, Skou Søren Thorgaard, Wienecke Troels\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/26331055221145002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is often used to examine neurophysiology. We aimed to investigate the inter-rater reliability and agreement of single pulse TMS in hospitalised acute ischemic stroke patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-one patients with first-time acute ischemic stroke (median age 72 (IQR 64-75), 35% females) underwent TMS motor threshold (MT) assessment in 4 muscles bilaterally, conducted by 1 of 2 physiotherapists. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using a two-way random effects model (2,1) absolute agreement-type Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) and Smallest Detectable Change (SDC) were used to evaluate agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Reliability, SEM, and SDC of TMS was found to be moderate in right opponens pollicis (0.78 [CI 95% 0.55-0.89], SEM: 4.51, SDC: 12.51), good in right vastus medialis and tibial anterior (0.88 [CI 95% 0.72-0.96], SEM: 2.89, SDC: 8.01 and 0.88 [CI 95% 0.76-0.94], SEM: 2.88, SDC: 7.98 respectively), and excellent in right and left biceps brachii (0.98 [CI 95% 0.96-0.99], SEM: 1.79 SDC: 4.96, and 0.94 [CI 95% 0.89-0.97], SEM: 2.17 SDC: 6.01), opponens pollicis (0.92 [CI 95% 0.83-0.96], SEM: 2.68 SDC: 8.26, vastus medialis (0.92 [CI 95% 0.84-0.96], SEM: 2.87 SDC: 7.95), and tibial anterior (0.93 [CI 95% 0.86-0.96], SEM: 2.51 SDC: 6.95).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The TMS demonstrated moderate to excellent inter-rater reliability confirming the ability of these measures to reliably discriminate between individuals in the current study sample. Improvements of less than 4.96 to 12.51 could be a result of measurement error and may therefore not be considered a true change.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36527,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuroscience Insights\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/78/b0/10.1177_26331055221145002.PMC9791285.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuroscience Insights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/26331055221145002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroscience Insights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26331055221145002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
背景:经颅磁刺激(TMS)常用于神经生理学检查。我们的目的是研究急性缺血性脑卒中住院患者单脉冲经颅磁刺激的可靠性和一致性。方法:31例首次急性缺血性脑卒中患者(中位年龄72岁(IQR 64-75),女性35%),由2名物理治疗师中的1名进行双侧4块肌肉的TMS运动阈值(MT)评估。采用双向随机效应模型(2,1)绝对一致性类间相关系数(ICC)评估重测信度。使用测量标准误差(SEM)和最小可检测变化(SDC)来评估一致性。结果:可靠性、SEM和提交的经颅磁刺激在正确的对向肌温和全身(0.78 (95% CI 0.55 - -0.89),扫描电镜:4.51,署:12.51),在右股内侧肌和胫骨前(0.88 (95% CI 0.72 - -0.96),扫描电镜:2.89,署:8.01和0.88 (95% CI 0.76 - -0.94),扫描电镜:2.88,署:7.98),和优秀的左、右肱二头肌(0.98 (95% CI 0.96 - -0.99),扫描电镜:1.79署:4.96,和0.94 (95% CI 0.89 - -0.97),扫描电镜:2.17署:6.01),对全身(0.92 (95% CI 0.83 - -0.96),扫描电镜:2.68 SDC: 8.26,股内侧肌(0.92 [CI 95% 0.84-0.96], SEM: 2.87 SDC: 7.95),胫骨前肌(0.93 [CI 95% 0.86-0.96], SEM: 2.51 SDC: 6.95)。结论:经颅磁刺激表现出中等至优异的评分者间信度,证实了这些措施在当前研究样本中可靠区分个体的能力。小于4.96到12.51的改进可能是测量误差的结果,因此可能不被认为是真正的变化。
Test-Retest Reliability and Agreement of Single Pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) for Measuring Activity in Motor Cortex in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke.
Background: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is often used to examine neurophysiology. We aimed to investigate the inter-rater reliability and agreement of single pulse TMS in hospitalised acute ischemic stroke patients.
Methods: Thirty-one patients with first-time acute ischemic stroke (median age 72 (IQR 64-75), 35% females) underwent TMS motor threshold (MT) assessment in 4 muscles bilaterally, conducted by 1 of 2 physiotherapists. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using a two-way random effects model (2,1) absolute agreement-type Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) and Smallest Detectable Change (SDC) were used to evaluate agreement.
Results: Reliability, SEM, and SDC of TMS was found to be moderate in right opponens pollicis (0.78 [CI 95% 0.55-0.89], SEM: 4.51, SDC: 12.51), good in right vastus medialis and tibial anterior (0.88 [CI 95% 0.72-0.96], SEM: 2.89, SDC: 8.01 and 0.88 [CI 95% 0.76-0.94], SEM: 2.88, SDC: 7.98 respectively), and excellent in right and left biceps brachii (0.98 [CI 95% 0.96-0.99], SEM: 1.79 SDC: 4.96, and 0.94 [CI 95% 0.89-0.97], SEM: 2.17 SDC: 6.01), opponens pollicis (0.92 [CI 95% 0.83-0.96], SEM: 2.68 SDC: 8.26, vastus medialis (0.92 [CI 95% 0.84-0.96], SEM: 2.87 SDC: 7.95), and tibial anterior (0.93 [CI 95% 0.86-0.96], SEM: 2.51 SDC: 6.95).
Conclusion: The TMS demonstrated moderate to excellent inter-rater reliability confirming the ability of these measures to reliably discriminate between individuals in the current study sample. Improvements of less than 4.96 to 12.51 could be a result of measurement error and may therefore not be considered a true change.