ArticleThe Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences2004
Physician practices in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome at a medical center in southern Taiwan.
Article in The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common neurologic entrapment disorder diagnosed in the upper limb. Nevertheless, there is still debate about the most reliable test that should be performed to diagnose CTS. Much of the argument has been drawn from the opinions of individuals or groups with varying degrees of expertise in the field; little has been based on actual data. The purpose of this study was to investigate the diagnostic patterns of CTS in an academic medical setting in southern Taiwan. The charts of 1,050 patients with a diagnosis of CTS over a 1-year period (2001-2002) were retrospectively reviewed. Data on 622 patients with new-onset CTS were included in the analysis. On the patient's initial visit, physicians made a diagnosis of CTS in 34.9% of cases solely on the basis of the history of symptoms without resort to provocative tests, while 8.7% of cases were diagnosed on the basis of symptom characteristics alone in spite of negative provocative tests. A CTS diagnosis was given according to symptoms and positive provocative tests in 55% of cases. Apart from these, CTS diagnosis remained unchanged in 27.3% of cases without electrodiagnostic signs of CTS during follow-up visits. An average of 1.6 diagnostic maneuvers were conducted for CTS patients, with nerve conduction velocity (NCV) studies (516 cases) being the most frequently performed, followed by Tinel's sign (350 cases) and Phalen's test (102 cases). Our findings imply that physicians are inclined to base their diagnosis on clinical history and physical examination for patients with suspected CTS. Clear guidelines regarding the indications for referral for NCV studies should be established in response to the increased concerns about the cost effectiveness of diagnostic tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.