<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.4 20241031//EN"
        "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.4/JATS-journalpublishing1-4.dtd">
<article  article-type="research-article"        dtd-version="1.4">
            <front>

                <journal-meta>
                                                                <journal-id>med j west black sea</journal-id>
            <journal-title-group>
                                                                                    <journal-title>Medical Journal of Western Black Sea</journal-title>
            </journal-title-group>
                            <issn pub-type="ppub">2822-4302</issn>
                                        <issn pub-type="epub">2587-0602</issn>
                                                                                            <publisher>
                    <publisher-name>Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University</publisher-name>
                </publisher>
                    </journal-meta>
                <article-meta>
                                        <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.29058/mjwbs.959801</article-id>
                                                                <article-categories>
                                            <subj-group  xml:lang="en">
                                                            <subject>Health Care Administration</subject>
                                                    </subj-group>
                                            <subj-group  xml:lang="tr">
                                                            <subject>Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi</subject>
                                                    </subj-group>
                                    </article-categories>
                                                                                                                                                        <title-group>
                                                                                                                        <trans-title-group xml:lang="en">
                                    <trans-title>Characteristics of Cases Admitted to a State Hospital Neurophysiology Laboratory and Consistency of Clinical Pre-Diagnosis and Electromyographic Diagnosis</trans-title>
                                </trans-title-group>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <article-title>Bir Devlet Hastanesi Nörofizyoloji Laboratuvarına Başvuran Olguların Özellikleri ve Klinik Ön Tanı ile Elekromiyografik Tanı Tutarlılığı</article-title>
                                                                                                    </title-group>
            
                                                    <contrib-group content-type="authors">
                                                                        <contrib contrib-type="author">
                                                                    <contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">
                                        https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4561-1844</contrib-id>
                                                                <name>
                                    <surname>Kunt</surname>
                                    <given-names>Refik</given-names>
                                </name>
                                                                    <aff>İzmir Demokrasi Üniversitesi</aff>
                                                            </contrib>
                                                    <contrib contrib-type="author">
                                                                    <contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">
                                        https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4456-4209</contrib-id>
                                                                <name>
                                    <surname>Aslan Karaoğlu</surname>
                                    <given-names>Sinem</given-names>
                                </name>
                                                                    <aff>23 Nisan Aile Sağlığı Merkezi</aff>
                                                            </contrib>
                                                                                </contrib-group>
                        
                                        <pub-date pub-type="pub" iso-8601-date="20211225">
                    <day>12</day>
                    <month>25</month>
                    <year>2021</year>
                </pub-date>
                                        <volume>5</volume>
                                        <issue>3</issue>
                                        <fpage>409</fpage>
                                        <lpage>414</lpage>
                        
                        <history>
                                    <date date-type="received" iso-8601-date="20210630">
                        <day>06</day>
                        <month>30</month>
                        <year>2021</year>
                    </date>
                                                    <date date-type="accepted" iso-8601-date="20211025">
                        <day>10</day>
                        <month>25</month>
                        <year>2021</year>
                    </date>
                            </history>
                                        <permissions>
                    <copyright-statement>Copyright © 2017, Medical Journal of Western Black Sea</copyright-statement>
                    <copyright-year>2017</copyright-year>
                    <copyright-holder>Medical Journal of Western Black Sea</copyright-holder>
                </permissions>
            
                                                                                                <trans-abstract xml:lang="en">
                            <p>Aim: In this study, it was aimed to evaluate the characteristics of the patients referred to the secondary level state hospital neurophysiologylaboratory by different branches, and to evaluate the compatibility between clinical prediagnoses and electromyographic (EMG) diagnoses.Material and Methods: The results of the EMGs performed by the same physician in the Aydın State Hospital Neurophysiology Laboratoryduring the 18-month period between 01.03.2014-30.09.2015 were reviewed retrospectively. The agreement between the prediagnosis of thereferring clinic and the EMG result information was analyzed.Results: 1620 (64.1%) of the patients with a mean age of 48.5±15 (5-90) years were female. Neurology 1574 (62.3%), physical therapyand rehabilitation (PTR) 534 (21.1%), orthopedics 184 (7.3%), neurosurgery 155 (6.1%) and other branches 81 (3.2%) requested EMG fromthe neurophysiology laboratory. The prediagnoses of the patients who underwent EMG were; 1027 (40.6%) carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS),130 (5.1%) cubital tunnel syndrome (CUTS), 452 (17.8%) polyneuropathy (PNP), 467 (18.4%) upper extremity radiculopathy (RDP), 198(7.8%) lower extremity RDP. When the prediagnosis-EMG diagnosis agreement is examined: in CTS 55.6% rate, moderate agreement; inCUTS 65.4% rate, strong agreement; in PNP 38.5% rate, moderate agreement; in upper extremity RDP 87.1% rate, strong agreement; inlower extremity RDP 81.3% rate, strong agreement were found. 25% of all EMG results were normal. Normal results were found in 27.5% inneurology, 21.7% in PTR, 20.1% in orthopedics, and 11.6% in neurosurgery. In addition, normal results were determined in 27.7% in CTS,16.2% in CUTS, 48% in PNP, 6% in upper extremity RDP, and 10.6% in lower extremity RDP. PNP was the most common prediagnosis(48%) with a normal result, and it was found to be statistically significant (p</p></trans-abstract>
                                                                                                                                    <abstract><p>Amaç: Bu çalışma ile ikinci basamak devlet hastanesi nörofizyoloji laboratuvarına farklı branşlartarafından yönlendirilen hastaların özellikleri ve klinik ön tanıları ile elektromiyografik(EMG) tanılarıarasındaki uyumun değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır.Gereç ve Yöntemler: 01.03.2014–30.09.2015 tarihlerini kapsayan 18 aylık süre içinde Aydın DevletHastanesi Nörofizyoloji Laboratuvarı’nda aynı hekim tarafından yapılan EMG’lerin sonuç raporlarıretrospektif olarak incelenerek gönderen branşın ön tanısı ve EMG sonuç bilgileri arasındaki uyumanaliz edildi.Bulgular: Yaş ortalaması 48.5±15 (5-90) yıl olan hastaların 1620’si (%64.1) kadındı. Nörofizyolojilaboratuvarından; nöroloji 1574 (%62.3), fizik tedavi ve rehabilitasyon (FTR) 534 (%21.1), ortopedi184 (%7.3), nöroşirürji 155 (%6.1) ve diğer branşlar 81(%3.2) EMG isteminde bulundu. EMG yapılanhastaların ön tanılarının 1027 (%40.6)’si karpal tünel sendromu (KTS), 130 (%5.1)’u kubital tünelsendromu (KUTS), 452 (%17.8)’si polinöropati (PNP), 467 (%18.4)’si üst ekstremite radikülopati (RDP),198 (%7.8)’i alt ekstremite RDP ‘ydi. Ön tanı-kesin tanı uyumları incelendiğinde: KTS’de %55.6 oran,orta derecede uyum; KUTS’de %65.4 oran, önemli derecede uyum; PNP’de %38.5 oran, orta derecedeuyum, üst ekstremite RDP’de %87.1 oran, önemli derecede uyum, alt esktremite RDP’de %81.3 oran,önemli derecede uyum saptandı. Tüm EMG sonuçlarının %25’i normaldi. Nörolojide %27.5, FTR’de%21.7, ortopedide %20.1, nöroşirürjide %11.6 normal sonuç saptandı. Ayrıca KTS’de %27.7, KUTS’de%16.2, PNP’de %48, üst ekstremite RDP’de %6, alt esktremite RDP’de %10.6 normal sonuçlarbelirlendi. PNP, en çok oranda (%48) sonucu normal çıkan ön tanı olup istatistiksel olarak anlamlı(p</p></abstract>
                                                            
            
                                                                                        <kwd-group>
                                                    <kwd>EMG</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  tanı uyumluluğu</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  klinik ön tanı</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  elektrodiagnostik tanı</kwd>
                                            </kwd-group>
                            
                                                <kwd-group xml:lang="en">
                                                    <kwd>EMG</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  diagnostic compatibility</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  clinical prediagnosis</kwd>
                                                    <kwd>  electrodiagnostic diagnosis</kwd>
                                            </kwd-group>
                                                                                                                                    <funding-group specific-use="FundRef">
                    <award-group>
                                                    <funding-source>
                                <named-content content-type="funder_name">Yok</named-content>
                            </funding-source>
                                                                            <award-id>Yok</award-id>
                                            </award-group>
                </funding-group>
                                </article-meta>
    </front>
    <back>
                            <ref-list>
                                    <ref id="ref1">
                        <label>1</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Mondelli M et al. Knowledge of electromyography (EMG) in patients undergoing EMG examinations. Funct Neurol. 2014;29(3):195-200.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref2">
                        <label>2</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Türkel Y et al. How Compatible is Clinical Diagnosis with Electrophysiology? J Clin Anal Med 2014;5(5): 366-368.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref3">
                        <label>3</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Atalay NŞ et al. Investigation of consistency between clinical referral diagnosis and electroneuromyographic diagnosis. Anatol J Clin Investig 2012;6(2):113-116</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref4">
                        <label>4</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Cocito D et al. A further critical evaluation of requests for electrodiagnostic examinations. Neurol Sci 2006;26:419-22.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref5">
                        <label>5</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Sucullu Karadağ Y et al. Referral diagnosis versus electroneurophysiological findings-three years experience from a tertiary hospital. Eur J Gen Med 2014; 11(4):244-247</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref6">
                        <label>6</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Adam M et al. The appropriateness of requests for electroneuromyography examinations. Turk J Phys Med Rehab 2007;53:150-153.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref7">
                        <label>7</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Ustaömer K, Sarıfakıoğlu AB. Prediagnosis- electrodiagnosis; how much concordant? Namik Kemal Med J 2018; 6(1):1-8.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref8">
                        <label>8</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Adebayo PB et al. EMG indications and findings in a sub-Saharan African neurorehabilitation center. Clin Neurophysiol Pract. 2018;3:99-103.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref9">
                        <label>9</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Danner R. Referral diagnosis versus electroneurophysiological finding. Two years electroneuromyographic consultation in a rehabilitation clinic. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1990;30(3):153-7.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref10">
                        <label>10</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Di Fabio R et al. Requests for electromyography in Rome: a critical evaluation. Funct Neurol. 2013 Oct-Dec;28(4):281-4.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref11">
                        <label>11</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Haig AJ et al. The value of electrodiagnostic consultation for patients with upper extremity nerve complaints: a prospective comparison with the history and physical examination. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(10):1273-81.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                                    <ref id="ref12">
                        <label>12</label>
                        <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">On AY ve ark. Bir EMG laboratuarına başvuran olguların özellikleri ve klinik tanı-EMG tutarlılığı. Ege Fiz Tıp Reh Der 1998;4:71-6.</mixed-citation>
                    </ref>
                            </ref-list>
                    </back>
    </article>
