ArticleJournal of neurosciences in rural practice
Clinical Evaluation and Diagnostic Utilities of Different Nerve Conduction Tests in 100 Patients with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.
Article in Journal of neurosciences in rural practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ring finger sensory latency difference in the diagnosis and treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.BMC neurology · 2021Article
- Carpel tunnel syndrome: A link with vitamin D and calcium.Biomedical reports · 2020Article
- Can the First Web Space Angle Be Predictive of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome?Iranian journal of public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe purpose of the study is to determine whether the clinical profile of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) has been same over the years with the help of routine and comparative electrodiagnostic tests.
methodsA prospective study of 100 patients with suspected CTS was conducted without controls. Three provocative maneuvers were performed. Routine and comparison nerve conduction tests were performed, i.e., second lumbrical interossei motor latency difference (2 LIMLD), digit 4 median-ulnar sensory latency difference (D4MUSLD), palm wrist distal sensory latency difference (PWDSLD), and digit 1 median-radial sensory latency difference (D1MRSLD). Data entry, analysis, and statistical evaluation were done using International Business Machines Corporation Statistical Package for the Social Sciences statistics package (IBM, SPSS).
resultsA total of 195 hands of 100 patients met the criteria for CTS. Forty-three percentage of patients were homemakers. Considering the rapidly changing communication technology, we observed 84% patients had aggravation of symptoms with continuous long-term daily mobile phone use (>30 min per session per day). We noted positive Tinel's sign in only 25%. Phalen's sign was positive in 53 right hands with mean duration of 11.49s (standard deviation [SD] ± 2.54 s) and was positive in 26 left hands with mean being 10.4 s (SD ± 1.91 s). The mean motor distal latency of median was 4.67 ms (SD ± 1.71 ms) and mean sensory distal latency of median was 3.24 ms (SD ± 1 ms). On internal comparison testing, mean difference in 2 LIMLD was 0.7 ± 0.3 ms, in D4MUSLD was 0.81 ± 0.32, in PWDSLD was 0.71 ± 0.20, and in D1MRSLD was 0.76 ± 0.32.
conclusionFurther analysis of clinical profile needs to be done, and new risk or provoking factors should be analyzed in patients with CTS.
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.