Talk:Nerve conduction study

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of the brain, nerves and nervous system.

Medicine: Neurology Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Chiropractic Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medical Student Project

Hello, I am a 4th year medical student who has choose this page to edit and contribute too for a class. My plan is to add citations to the material in the article, decrease the jargon some or add a glossy to help with ease of reading, reword some of the physics to make it more digestible, and hopefully find more images to illustrate better what is currently in the article. I was also thinking of adding tables with WNL latency numbers to illustrate the diagnostic aspect of NCS better. Open to any feedback or suggestions as to what I should add or edit on this page through this class. Thank you.— Wholehartleymed (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I

I got five minutes into an NCV test and told the examiner to stop. She said, "We're not here to cause you more pain than you already have." I replied, "Too late."

I don't care what web sites tell you about it's not painful; because it's f**king painful. Half a milliamp might not sound like much, but give it about 10kV and it'll get your attention RIGHT NOW. At first, it was probably more startling than painful. But as the electrode went from my wrist to the inside of my elbow, it became pure pain. Don't let anyone tell you this test "may cause mild discomfort" -- that is medical doublespeak.

--Globe199 20:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told that it depends on the skill of the examiner. Perhaps you would have had a better experience in someone else's hands. One family member said he's had it done two or three times; the middle-aged physician who did the first or second time was apparently horrible. The just-out-of-med-school newbie didn't bother him nearly as much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spend an afternoon in a NCV lab and you will see there is a large variation in how painful the test is to different people. The skill of the examiner doesn't play that much a role except in how many times they have to shock you to get an adequate reading. --Gccwang (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

PAIN AND NCV TEST

Indeed the above person may well suffered this experience but its absolutely wrong and unfair to generalized this statement. Noy everyone who has the electric impulse given feels and reacts as mentioned above. The above information is correct on individual basis and experience but can be misleading if all readers come to believe of what has been explained. About 95% of people easily finish the test with only mild discomfort while the remaining 4.9% have discomfort and may or may not finish the test. Less than 1 percent of patient in our experience feel what has been mentioned above. I have done thousands of these test and this test called NCV is one of the most common and most essential test in Neurology practice. The test helps to provide essential information on the integerty of the nerves to guide in the diagnosis process. Please refer to American Academy of Neurology for more reliable information. Dr. Of Neurology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.239.194 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I BELIEVE THAT DOCTORS JUST WANT TO CHARGE FOR MORE TESTS

I saw a Neurologist once and the office has left multiple voice mail messages on my home phone and finally sent me a letter asking that I make an appointment to have the NCV. I haven't even gotten the results from the MRIs, EEGs, Xrays and intitial evaluation yet. They won't be getting any more of my money for more tests. The more tests they order, the more money they make. It's a racket!

Shaken2 Port Saint Lucie Florida —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.164.125.254 (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

small pain fiber study?

Anything to back up the small pain fiber study as being routinely accepted? Googling on this doesn't get you much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.96.46 (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PubMed yields zero relevant results for "spf-NCS". I suggest removal of this section because it lacks notability in the medical field. Marco.calabresi (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing old merge proposal. No consensus to merge. Ajpolino (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate wikipedia article entitled electroneuronography, which is the same procedure as nerve conduction study, just under a different name. As is evident by the content of the ENoG page, this is the term most commonly used for the nerve conduction study of the facial nerve, and in my experience is more commonly used by ENT specialists than by neurologists or PM&R specialists. I would propose that ENoG content be merged into this article, as I believe nerve conduction study to be the more common term used. Please provide input. Thanks. El piel (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge As you mentioned, ENoG is used more commonly by ENT specialists, and is a distinct test used only on the facial nerve. It should have its own article that discusses the procedure, measurements, and interpretation; they are not the same as for a NCV. We can have a brief section on ENoG on the NCV article, but with a redirect to electroneuronography as the main article. --Gccwang (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose a different merge

The article electromyoneurography appears to describe nerve conduction studies, and it looks to be a synonym. Nerve conduction study is the more widely used term today to describe this procedure for nerve testing. Most neurologists say "EMG" or "EMG and NCV" when talking about doing both tests together.

Please note this is a different article than electroneuronography whose merge proposal is listed in the section above. --Gccwang (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gccwang and El piel: Any thoughts? — fortunavelut luna 10:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: there is great overlap between the current pages. As discussed elsewhere, the nerve conduction study is commonly used as a catch-all phrase to also encompass the simultaneous electromyography, which makes the term almost synonymous with electromyoneurography. Any differences is best discussed on the same page. Klbrain (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my brief summary of the 4 overlapping pages and their current scope:

*Nerve conduction study: quite tightly focussed on studies of peripheral nerve function (including motor, sensory and autonomic nerves).
*Electromyography: focusses on muscle function studies, but also discusses nerve function in places. Such discussions are helpful in the context, because the study of muscle function by this method necessarily involves the measurement of nerve function
*Electromyoneurography: Bridges studies of nerve and muscle function, but overlaps with content particularly on the muscle page; for example, Electromyography#Abnormal results and Electromyoneurography#Conditions Diagnosed with Electromyoneurography cover the same combination of nerve and muscle problems; the former is more comprehensive, and the latter is more elegantly formatted and selective.
*Electroneuronography: A discipline-specific term (in modern use) reflecting studies of the facial nerve and the muscles it innervates; mostly performed by audiologists and argued elsewhere to have independent notability.

Given the above, my feeling is that Electromyoneurography overlaps more with Electromyography than with Nerve conduction study, and therefore is better merged to this alternative target. Klbrain (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nerve conduction study. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: 2024-25 WikiMed Directed Studies

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 October 2024 and 23 November 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wholehartleymed (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Wholehartleymed (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Lead: The lead is concise and talks about what the test is and who is able to perform the test. Maybe it would be beneficial to add one sentence on when/why it is used after the first sentence or part of the introductory sentence. For example, ".... measures the function of motor and sensory nerves in cases of neuropathy/neuromuscular disorders." The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, and could benefit from a brief sentence that includes significance and procedure.

Content:

The Purpose and indications section is great. I think it would benefit from rearranging the second sentence of the first paragraph towards the end after mentioning the indications for NCS.

I like the formatting of the Procedure section. I think this section could benefit from an image of the procedure, if you are able to find one.

In Types of studies, it would be nice to have one to two summary sentences before you go into the details of the diff tests. Maybe you can mention when one is used over the other or how they vary (in stimulation strength and measurements). It would also be nice to have some information on when specialized testing is used and what it briefly consists of.

Interpretation: great content!

Patient risk and complications, I think the content here is great and well organized. Only thing, there is a typo in the last sentence of the Deep brain stimulators- I can fix.

Tone: The content is stated in a neutral tone.

Sources and references: I am able to access all sources listed and there are relevant to date.

Organization/Images: I think article is well written and well organized with the addition of subtopics and formatting changes. I think there could be an image under procedures if able to find one.

Overall: The strengths of this article include the organization and content. I think areas of improvement include making the Types of studies section more average-reader friendly. I like the information here, but think it needs a small summary paragraph before the details to help the reader grab a bigger picture of the information here. Cheftj (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]