Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31909307›Full record

ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2020

Impact of technical variations on the ring-finger test for carpal tunnel syndrome.

Daniel Gregor Schulze, Karl-Christian Nordby, Milada Cvancarova Småstuen, Thomas Clemm, Margreth Grotle, John Anker Zwart, Kristian Bernhard Nilsen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Daniel Gregor SchulzeDepartment of Neurology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Karl-Christian NordbyNational Institute of Occupational Health, Oslo, Norway.
Milada Cvancarova SmåstuenOslo and Akershus University College, Oslo, Norway.
Thomas ClemmNational Institute of Occupational Health, Oslo, Norway.
Margreth GrotleOslo and Akershus University College, Oslo, Norway.
John Anker ZwartDepartment of Neurology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Kristian Bernhard NilsenDepartment of Neurology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess if recording the sensory latencies of the median and ulnar nerves one-by-one (consecutive) or at the same time (simultaneous) in the ring-finger test for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) will show equivalent results or if it will lead to a different clinical classification of patients.

methodsWe assessed the limits of agreement between the simultaneous and the consecutive method based on the median- ulnar sensory latency difference derived by both methods in 80 subjects and compared the number of minimal CTS cases identified by the two methods.

resultsLimits of agreement ranged from -0.23 to 0.29 ms. A significantly higher proportion of subjects with minimal CTS (only detectable by using the comparison test) was found using the simultaneous method (n = 8 and 2, respectively; p = 0.03).

conclusionThe two methods have a poor to moderate agreement as indicated by the range of the limits of agreement (0.5 ms). SIGNIFICANCE: Even small methodological changes to the ring-finger test can lead to results with different clinical meaning in the same individual and one should be aware of which method was used when interpreting results.

Indexed as

CTS, carpal tunnel syndromeEMG, electromyographyHAVS, hand arm vibration syndromeMedian-ulnar nerves comparison testsNCS, nerve conduction studyNerve conduction studyRing finger test

Identifiers

PMID31909307
PMCPMC6940656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.