quantitative emg
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

81
(FIVE YEARS 4)

H-INDEX

13
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2020 ◽  
Vol 131 (9) ◽  
pp. 2192-2199
Author(s):  
Philemon Tsang ◽  
Joy C. MacDermid ◽  
Thomas A. Miller ◽  
Timothy J. Doherty ◽  
Douglas C. Ross

2019 ◽  
Vol 130 (10) ◽  
pp. e173
Author(s):  
Erik Stålberg

2019 ◽  
Vol 130 (7) ◽  
pp. e104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oscar Garnes C. Estruch ◽  
Gonzalo Diaz Cano ◽  
Daniel Stashuk

2018 ◽  
Vol 99 (10) ◽  
pp. e39-e40
Author(s):  
Philemon Tsang ◽  
Michelle Eventov ◽  
Thomas Miller ◽  
Timothy Doherty ◽  
Joy MacDermid ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 127 (9) ◽  
pp. e313
Author(s):  
Jorge Gutierrez
Keyword(s):  

2016 ◽  
Vol 127 (9) ◽  
pp. e240-e241
Author(s):  
J. Flasar ◽  
G.F. Volk ◽  
T. Lehmann ◽  
A. Irintchev ◽  
O. Guntinas-Lichius

2016 ◽  
pp. 437-464
Author(s):  
Benn E. Smith

Semi-quantitative EMG methods are in common use in clinical electromyography laboratories but have a number of drawbacks and limitations, including examiner bias in MUP analysis and challenges distinguishing between MUP categories of normal and neurogenic and normal and myopathic waveforms. An array of formal MUP quantitation methods has been developed in recent decades, which seek to address many of the shortcomings of semiquantitative EMG. The advantages of quantitative EMG (QEMG) include: (1) making measurements of MUP recordings consisting of numerical values derived from precise measurements, (2) generating normative data and allowing comparisons with data from patients with suspected neuromuscular diseases, (3) allowing for reproducible results that can be compared at different times by different examiners and in different labs, and (4) allowing accurate assessment of improvement or deterioration in disease severity over time.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document