Turning a New Page in Clinical Magnetoencephalography: Practicing According to the First Clinical Practice Guidelines
R. Burgess,G. Barkley,A. Bagić
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/WNO.0b013e3181cde47b
IF: 2.59
2011-08-01
Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology
Abstract:Magnetoencephalography (MEG) has been in existence for four decades (Cohen, 1968, 1972), and now, a large body of literature exists (Bagi c et al., 2009), including well-designed studies demonstrating its clinical value (Knowlton et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2009; Sutherling et al, 2008). Clearly, MEG is no longer a “new technology,” and it is a propitious time to promulgate guidelines for MEG evaluations and to practice according to them. The main reasons, of course, are the usual ones: a crying need to ensure that MEG laboratories are adhering to good practice, a desire for systematic comparison across laboratories and in multicenter studies that demand consistent practices, and some minimal standards that both laboratory directors and payers can point to. It also is in keeping with the tradition of the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society, which for the past several decades has formulated and revised Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) on a variety of neurophysiologic diagnostic tests (see http://www.acns.org/guidelines.cfm for a listing). Other bodies will dictate what good practice is if we do not. Society and regulatory bodies want to ensure competency, and medical practitioners expect leadership toward quality (Clavien et al., 2005; Nahrwold, 2010). With health care reform high on the list of federal priorities and no money to spend on it, there will certainly be added scrutiny focused on new and expensive procedures. The very existence of voluntarily produced and expertly reviewed guidelines demonstrates a level of professionalism and maturity that establishes a baseline of clinical credibility. Clinical Practice Guidelines have been a reality in the medical profession for decades (e.g., Schorow and Carpenter, 1971; Talley et al., 1990; Wiebe, 2010; http://www.acns.org/guidelines.cfm). Yet, actual penetration of these guidelines into clinical practice varies (Haneef et al., 2010; Wiebe, 2010). To move toward excellence in MEG, as in all areas of clinical medicine, we must first obtain a clear picture of the current practices and the roles of the people practicing. Hence, the process of establishing the American Clinical Magnetoencephalography Society’s (ACMEGS) first CPGs started with an assessment of the state of clinical MEG in the United States (Bagi c, 2011). This survey was conducted in 2008 and included 90% of MEG centers providing clinical services at that time. Of course, not all individuals practicing clinical MEG from each participating center responded, and the field has dramatically grown even further in the past three years. Despite these and other limitations, this survey is the first systematic attempt to recount the prevailing clinical MEG practice in the United States, and it provides several important points to consider (Bagi c, 2011). The survey revealed a diversity of organizational structures and a large variability in daily practice. In more than a quarter of the surveyed centers, clinical reports of epilepsy MEG studies are signed by nonneurologists, two of whom were nonphysicians. Another remarkable finding was that the turnaround time from test to report ranged from 0.5 to 30 days, and this reporting time variability was not related to volume. These results demonstrate not only numerical variability but also suggest fundamental differences in practice and raise important questions. Should those of us struggling to complete our analysis and reports within even several days or a week be embarrassed that we cannot complete them within a day? Should we attempt to massively streamline our practice? And on the flip side, is there any reason why reports should take up to 30 days to send out in any clinical MEG center? Integration into the overall clinical neurophysiology community is crucially important. Considering the complementary nature of MEG and EEG techniques (Barkley and Baumgartner, 2003, Ebersole and Ebersole 2010), it was reassuring to find that all centers claimed to be using EEG collected simultaneously with MEG in some way, but it remains concerning that EEG is used variably in study processing and interpretation. Some centers use EEG only to define the time slice of the MEG signal for dipole modeling, while rare centers also engage in EEG source localization. Although only a small point, the fact that the number of averaged responses used for mapping a particular modality ranged across centers by a factor of 19 is further illustrative of a wide variability in practicedor is a high number of averages an indication of fundamentally low signal quality?