Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26200640›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2015

Subcutaneous Versus Submuscular Anterior Transposition of the Ulnar Nerve for Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies.

Chun-Hua Liu, Shi-Qiang Wu, Xiao-Bin Ke, Han-Long Wang, Chang-Xian Chen, Zhan-Long Lai, Zhi-Yong Zhuang, Zhi-Qiang Wu, Qin Lin

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Novel Technique for Ulnar Nerve Transposition at the Elbow: The Neocubital Tunnel.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Medial elbow pain.EFORT open reviews · 2017
    Review
  11. Article
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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chun-Hua LiuFrom the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Quanzhou Orthopedic-Traumatological Hospital, Fujian university of Traditional Chinese Medicine (C-HL, X-BK, H-LW, C-XC, Z-LL, Z-YZ, Z-QW); Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Quanzhou (S-QW); and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Fuzhou Second Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian province, China (QL).
Shi-Qiang Wu
Xiao-Bin Ke
Han-Long Wang
Chang-Xian Chen
Zhan-Long Lai
Zhi-Yong Zhuang
Zhi-Qiang Wu
Qin Lin
Fujian Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Subcutaneous and submuscular anterior ulnar nerve transposition have been widely used in patients with cubital tunnel syndrome. However, the reliable evidence in favor of 1 of 2 surgical options on clinical improvement remains controversial. To maximize the value of the available literature, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare subcutaneous versus submuscular anterior ulnar nerve transposition in patients with ulnar neuropathy at the elbow. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized and observational studies that compared subcutaneous transposition with submuscular transposition of ulnar nerve for cubital tunnel syndrome. The primary outcome was clinically relevant improvement in function compared to the baseline. Randomized and observational studies were separately analyzed with relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 7 observational studies, involving 605 patients, were included. Our meta-analysis suggested that no significant differences in the primary outcomes were observed between comparison groups, both in RCT (RR, 1.16; 95% CI 0.68-1.98; P = 0.60; I2= 81%) and observational studies (RR, 1.01; 95% CI 0.95-1.08; P = 0.69; I2 = 0%). These findings were also consistent with all subgroup analyses for observational studies. In the secondary outcomes, the incidence of adverse events was significantly lower in subcutaneous group than in submuscular group (RR, 0.54; 95% CI 0.33-0.87; P = 0.01; I2 = 0%), whereas subcutaneous transposition failed to reveal more superiority than submuscular transposition in static two-point discrimination (MD, 0.04; 95% CI -0.18-0.25; P = 0.74; I = 0%). The available evidence is not adequately powered to identify the best anterior ulnar nerve transposition technique for cubital tunnel syndrome on the basis of clinical outcomes, that is, suggests that subcutaneous and submuscular anterior transposition might be equally effective in terms of postoperative clinical improvement. However, differences in clinical outcomes metrics should be noted, and these findings largely rely on the outcomes data from observational studies that are potentially subject to a high risk of selection bias. Therefore, more high-quality and adequately powered RCTs with standardized clinical outcomes metrics are necessary for proper comparison of these techniques.

Indexed as

Cubital Tunnel SyndromeHumansNeurosurgical ProceduresRecovery of FunctionUlnar Nerve

Identifiers

PMID26200640
PMCPMC4602994
OpenAlexW2294848590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.