ArticleSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2019
Prevalence of the Linburg-Comstock variation through clinical evaluation.
Article in Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Linburg-Comstock variation: MRI findings in a traumatic injury.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLinburg-Comstock variation, the tendinous interconnection between flexor pollicis longus and flexor digitorum profundus, is known to have a wide frequency range. Its prevalence is reported with a range of 13-66%. The aim of the study was to assess this variation in general population and to correlate it with gender and side. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis prospective study included 215 subjects (82 males and 133 females). Two clinical tests were conducted to diagnose the variation and to detect any related symptomatology. The primary outcome was set to be the prevalence of Linburg-Comstock variation. Secondary outcomes were defined as gender-based prevalence, side-based prevalence, and Linburg-Comstock variation prevalence association with gender and side.
resultsLinburg-Comstock variation was clinically diagnosed in 130 (60.47%) participants. Unilateral and bilateral prevalence were of 17.21% and 43.26%, respectively, yielding a statistically significant difference. Right-sided and left-sided presence were calculated at 7.44% and 9.77%. Bilateral prevalence was statistically more common in females. Right-sided variation was found to be more frequent in males while left-sided variation was more prevalent in females. The index finger was the most commonly involved with prevalence of 91.03%. Symmetry was noted in 67.74% of subjects.
conclusionThe results of our study demonstrated a relatively high prevalence of the Linburg-Comstock variation in Serbian population. We noted a few unusual cases and this finding point to the existence of the broader spectrum of Linburg-Comstock variation, and complexity of the flexor apparatus of the hand, so, further investigations about this topic are needed to improve our knowledge. Due to the possibility of false-positive result during clinical testing we suggest to use expanded clinical method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31147737What 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.