Abstract
Objectives This study aimed to assess the effect of varying the reference electrode position, specifically comparing position A3 (medial patella) to routine position 1 (R1) and the MScan multicenter protocol position (M1), on compound muscle action potential (CMAP) and motor unit number estimation (MUNE) in the tibialis anterior muscle of healthy participants.
Methods Twenty healthy participants underwent repeated MScanFit MUNE assessments with a 7-14 day interval between tests. The reference electrode (E2) was placed in three positions at each visit (A3, R1, and M1), while the active electrode (E1) remained constant. An additional seventeen participants were included to establish the minimal detectable true change in MUNE values using MScanFit, with the reference electrode exclusively in the M1 position.
Results The reference electrode position significantly influenced CMAP and MUNE, with R1 resulting in lower values. However, no significant difference was observed between M1 and A3 positions. Relative and absolute reliability indicators favored using the M1 position for reference in MScanFit MUNE. In a combined dataset of 37 healthy participants, the average tibialis anterior muscle motor unit count was estimated at 148 (SD 25.2), with a minimal detectable true change of 55 units.
Conclusions The preference for the M1 position over the alternative A3 position is supported, particularly for MScanFit MUNE assessments in the tibialis anterior muscle. Clinically, a true change in MUNE should consider the minimal detectable change of 55 motor units, underscoring the reality that large changes in MUNE are required to conclude a genuine change beyond measurement error.
Significance For MUNE examinations of the tibialis anterior muscle, adhering to the electrode positions outlined in the MScan multicenter protocol is advisable. Awareness of measurement error limitations in MScanFit MUNE underscores its applicability in making longitudinal clinical decisions for individual patients.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was supported by an Undergraduate Student Research Award (USRA) to BGY, and a grant to KEJ from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (GRANT NUMBER: RGPIN-2017-05624).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Research Ethics Board of the University of Alberta gave ethical approval for this work (Protocol#: Pro00061945).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare
Funding Source: The work was supported by an Undergraduate Student Research Award (USRA) to BGY, and a grant to KEJ from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (GRANT NUMBER: RGPIN-2017-05624).
Data Availability
All data produced are available online at Figshare.
