I agree that physicians in general, and physiatrists in particular, should be open to new technologies. If new techniques are developed that make some of our core skills obsolete, we should be willing to use the technology in the best interest of the patient.
But due diligence also requires a full assessment of the value of new technologies.
Particularly in the case of radiculopathies, the pushing of new technology is FAR ahead of the science. The Wall Street Journal, for example, has several articles a month detailing the development of new surgical hardware, stand alone hospitals, new nerve tests, all developed for the purpose of more aggressively profiting from the high incidence of low back pain.
As one of my mentors in residency was fond of saying, for any disease, the more differences in opinion that exist, the less is actually known about the disease. Low back pain is the most clear example of this.
The initial sensitivity of a test reported in the literature should always be viewed with some skepticism. All new technologies have high sensitivity when first introduced, and often decrease in sensitivity as other clinicians attempt to replicate the results.
More importantly, in the context of radiculopathy, reports of sensitivity are highly dependent on the gold standard to which they are compared. And there is no great gold standard for radiculopathy. Nerve conduction studies, late responses, EMGs, MRI, appearence on surgery. and clinical assessment (history and physical) all have flaws. So the sensitivity is being gauged on a fuzzy standard, and therefore by definition will have some unreliability built into the measure.
Finally, one has to consider the incredible amount of fraud associated with electrodiagnostic studies. As noted by AXM, Dr. Dillingham and other's within the AANEM leadership have been aggressively documenting and attempting to block fraudulent electrodiagnostics. There has been a proliferation of mobile labs without physician involvement, unproven technologies, and shady practitioners who have worked to compromise the integrity of the electrodiagnostic evaluation in the name of milking the reimbursement system.
>Independent bodies such as the AMA, FDA, and most insurance carriers (according to the neuro-scan website) have already screened and approved its use in clinical practice.
Just because something is FDA approved does not mean that it is appropriate for making diagnostic decisions. F-waves are also FDA approved and has an ok sensitivity for radiculopathy. It's also an inappropriate test for ruling in radiculopathy, because of it's poor specificity. And again, the sensitivity has to be taken with a grain of salt, because there is no definitive gold standard.
> In my opinion, the scientific theory is interesting for the neural-scan, as well as, its design and ease of use
I am also skeptical of it's ease of use. The electrodiagnostic machine also seemed easy enough to use, until I started seeing patients with anatomical anomalies, multiple concommitant disease, or severe disease that affected the waveforms. Fortunately, I had a quality residency training that prepared me for dealing with the technical difficulties.
Who knows what technical difficulties are associted with this device? Do you really want to trust your physician extender to be making clinical judgments using this device just because the manufacturer claims its easy to use?
I'll keep an open mind, but I want to see more
