Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2016 UpToDate®

Nerve conduction studies: Late responses

Steven H Horowitz, MD
Section Editor
Jeremy M Shefner, MD, PhD
Deputy Editor
John F Dashe, MD, PhD


The unique natural electrical properties of peripheral nerves can be evaluated in health and disease with externally applied stimuli and analysis of the consequent neurophysiologic responses. Nerve conduction study techniques permit stimulation and recording of electrical activity from individual peripheral nerves with sufficient accuracy, reproducibility, and standardization to determine normal values, characterize abnormal findings, and correlate neurophysiologic-pathologic features.

These clinical studies are used to:

Diagnose focal and generalized disorders of peripheral nerves

Classify peripheral nerve conduction abnormalities due to axonal degeneration, demyelination, and conduction block

Prognosticate regarding clinical course and efficacy of treatment


Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Sep 2016. | This topic last updated: Nov 13, 2013.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2016 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Kimura, J. Electrodiagnosis in Diseases of Nerve and Muscle, 3rd ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2001.
  2. Dumitru, D. Electrodiagnostic Medicine, Hanlye & Belfus, Philadelphia, PA 1995.
  3. Young MS, Triggs WJ. Effect of stimulator orientation on F-wave persistence. Muscle Nerve 1998; 21:1324.
  4. Fisher MA. F-waves--physiology and clinical uses. ScientificWorldJournal 2007; 7:144.
  5. Kiers L, Clouston P, Zuniga G, Cros D. Quantitative studies of F responses in Guillain-Barré syndrome and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1994; 93:255.
  6. Research criteria for diagnosis of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). Report from an Ad Hoc Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology AIDS Task Force. Neurology 1991; 41:617.
  7. Van den Bergh PY, Piéret F. Electrodiagnostic criteria for acute and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. Muscle Nerve 2004; 29:565.
  8. Andersen H, Stålberg E, Falck B. F-wave latency, the most sensitive nerve conduction parameter in patients with diabetes mellitus. Muscle Nerve 1997; 20:1296.
  9. American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrdiagnostic Medicine (AANEM). Proper performance and interpretation of electrodiagnostic studies. Muscle Nerve 2006; 33:436.
  10. Falco FJ, Hennessey WJ, Goldberg G, Braddom RL. H reflex latency in the healthy elderly. Muscle Nerve 1994; 17:161.
  11. Cho SC, Ferrante MA, Levin KH, et al. Utility of electrodiagnostic testing in evaluating patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy: An evidence-based review. Muscle Nerve 2010; 42:276.
  12. Misiaszek JE. The H-reflex as a tool in neurophysiology: its limitations and uses in understanding nervous system function. Muscle Nerve 2003; 28:144.