Trial reportNeurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia)2018
Comparison of 2 methods of neuropathic pain assessment in carpal tunnel syndrome and hand functions.
Trial report in Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acute Clinical Effects of Dual-Task Resistance Exercise on Muscle Endurance and Pressure Sensitivity in Patients With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome After Surgery.Musculoskeletal care · 2026Trial
- Clinical and electrophysiological efficacy of extracorporeal shock-wave therapy in carpal tunnel syndrome: a placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2023Trial
- Efficiency of therapeutic underwater ultrasound therapy in mild-to-moderate carpal tunnel syndrome: A randomized sham-controlled study.Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Effect of adipose derived stromal vascular fraction on leprosy neuropathy: A Preliminary report.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2023Article
- Characterization of neuropathic component of back pain in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures.NeuroRehabilitation · 2022Article
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
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Scale (LANSS) to the painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q) in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS), and determine if there are any differences between hand related functions in the 2 questionnaires.
methodsThis prospective clinical trial was conducted from April to July 2014. Ninety patients with a positive Tinel or Phalen sign were recruited. Hands were evaluated by electromyography and grouped according to mild, moderate or severe involvement. Neuropathic pain was analysed by the LANSS and the PD-Q; hand functions were evaluated by the Duruoz Hand Index (DHI), Semmes Weinstein monofilaments and grip strength.
resultsElectromyographic findings revealed 32.9% of hands had mild, 61.8% had moderate and 5.3% had severe CTS. There was a correlation between the LANSS scores and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain, while the PD-Q scores were correlated with the VAS pain, DHI and Semmes Weinstein Monofilaments (SWM). Comparison of the hand related parameters of the questionnaires showed there was a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups with respect to the DHI and SWM tests in the PD-Q. However, there was no difference in the LANSS.
conclusionAlthough there was a significant correlation between the LANSS and PD-Q scores, the PD-Q scores revealed better correlation coefficients in VAS pain, DHI scores and SWM tests. In conclusion, the PD-Q seems to be better than the LANSS both in neuropathic pain and in detecting functions related to hand abilities.
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.