Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of Electrodiagnostic Testing and Ultrasonography for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

backgroundConfirmatory methods such as electrodiagnostic testing (EDX) and ultrasonography (US) are currently used to support a clinical diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Scientific consensus long has preferred nerve conduction studies (NCS); however, recent studies have advocated for a diagnostic niche for ultrasound examination. This study seeks to compare diagnostic accuracies, sensitivity, and specificity between these 2 diagnostic tools.

methodsAn institutional database was retrospectively analyzed to reveal 402 upper extremity cases (265 patients) with potential for CTS diagnosis. Demographics, NCS results, and US findings were determined for each patient case. Sensitivity and specificity values were determined for each diagnostic modality using Carpal Tunnel Syndrome 6 (CTS-6), a validated clinical CTS scoring system, as the reference standard. Demographic and diagnostic values were compared between positive and negative CTS groups using the 2-tailed

resultsElectrodiagnostic testing resulted in a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 27%, whereas US produced a sensitivity of 76% and a specificity of 51%. No statistical difference was found in CTS-6 scores between NCS-positive and NCS-negative patient hands, whereas CTS-6 scores were significantly greater in US-positive CTS cases than US-negative cases (15.2 and 13.1, respectively,

conclusionsElectrodiagnostic testing yields a greater sensitivity for CTS than US examination. However, US testing aligns more closely with CTS-6 scores and results in a greater specificity and positive predictive value. These findings suggest that US holds a non-trivial niche in CTS diagnosis and that EDX is not clearly preferable for all CTS diagnoses and cases.