Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28867905›Full record

ArticleJournal of hand and microsurgery2017

Motor Examination in the Diagnosis of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

Mithun Neral, Joseph E Imbriglia, Lois Carlson, Ronit Wollstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of hand and microsurgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Mithun NeralDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical School, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.
Joseph E ImbrigliaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.
Lois CarlsonThe Hand Center, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Glastonbury, Connecticut, United States.
Ronit WollsteinDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical School, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The relative importance and use of motor evaluation to diagnose carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is not clear. Because the ulnar nerve is not affected in CTS, we evaluated comparing the strength of the median-nerve innervated muscles to the ulnar innervated muscles in the same patient, through manual muscle testing (MMT) and a handheld dynamometer. Our purpose was to evaluate whether this method, which takes into account patient-dependent factors that would affect both groups of muscles equally, can provide better assessment of CTS. A retrospective case-control review of MMT and dynamometer-measured strength for CTS was performed. The study was performed retrospectively but prior to surgery or other treatment. There were 28 cases (CTS) and 14 controls (without CTS). Positive nerve conduction tests defined cases. MMT of the thenar musculature was found to be unreliable as a test for CTS. Comparisons to ulnar nerve innervated muscle strength did not improve sensitivity or specificity of the MMT examination. Use of the dynamometer improved sensitivity and specificity of motor testing in CTS over MMT. Motor evaluation is important for the diagnosis of CTS, but further study is warranted, specifically to define the method of motor evaluation and delineate the subgroup of patients (predominantly thenar motor presentation) that would benefit most from motor testing and motor-focused treatment.

Indexed as

carpal tunnel syndromediagnosisdynamometermotor examinationulnar

Identifiers

PMID28867905
PMCPMC5578813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.