Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23617407›Full record

Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2013

Development and validation of the patient-rated ulnar nerve evaluation.

Joy C MacDermid, Ruby Grewal

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialValidation Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02466841 withdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

Prospective Comparison of Techniques for Cubital Tunnel Release

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of PittsburghRan2015 to 2019Enrolled0ConditionsCubital Tunnel SyndromeArmsCubital tunnel release
NCT04647058 nawithdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Randomized Controlled Trial of Supercharged End-to-Side (SETS) Anterior Interosseous Nerve Transfer for Severe Cubital Tunnel Syndrome

TypeinterventionalSponsorBrigham and Women's HospitalRan2021 to 2022Enrolled0ConditionsCubital Tunnel Syndrome, Ulnar Nerve Compression, Ulnar Nerve Palsy, Ulnar Nerve EntrapmentArmsCubital tunnel release, Supercharged end-to-side (SETS) nerve transfer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Novel Technique for Ulnar Nerve Transposition at the Elbow: The Neocubital Tunnel.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Cubital tunnel syndrome.EFORT open reviews · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joy C MacDermidHand and Upper Limb Centre, 268 Grosvenor St, London, Ontario N6A 3A8, Canada. jmacderm@uwo.ca
Ruby Grewal
Hand and Upper Limb Clinic · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCompression neuropathy at the elbow causes substantial pain and disability. Clinical research on this disorder is hampered by the lack of a specific outcome measure for this problem. A patient-reported outcome measure, The Patient-Rated Ulnar Nerve Evaluation (PRUNE) was developed to assess pain, symptoms and functional disability in patients with ulnar nerve compression at the elbow.

methodsAn iterative process was used to develop and test items. Content validity was addressed using patient/expert interviews and review; linking of the scale items to International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) codes; and cognitive coding of the items. Psychometric analysis of data collected from 89 patients was evaluated. Patients completed a longer version of the PRUNE at baseline. Item reduction was performed using statistical analyses and patient input to obtain the final 20 item version. Score distribution, reliability, exploratory factor analysis, correlational construct validity, discriminative known group construct validity, and responsiveness to change were evaluated.

resultsContent analysis indicated items were aligned with subscale concepts of pain and sensory/motor symptoms impairments; specific upper extremity-related tasks; and that the usual function subscale provided a broad view of self-care, household tasks, major life areas and recreation/ leisure. Four subscales were demonstrated by factor analysis (pain, sensory/motor symptoms impairments, specific activity limitations, and usual activity/role restrictions). The PRUNE and its subscales had high reliability coefficients (ICCs>0.90; 0.98 for total score) and low absolute error. The minimal detectable change was 7.1 points. It was able to discriminate between clinically meaningful subgroups determined by an independent evaluation assessing work status, residual symptoms, motor recovery, sensory recovery and global improvement) p<0.01. Responsiveness was excellent (SRM=1.55).

conclusionThe PRUNE is a brief, open-access, patient-reported outcome measure for patients with ulnar nerve compression that demonstrates strong measurement properties.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDecompression, SurgicalDisability EvaluationElbowFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality of LifeRange of Motion, ArticularTreatment OutcomeUlnar Nerve Compression SyndromesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID23617407
PMCPMC3660194
OpenAlexW2064862479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.