Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34993620›Full record

ReviewActa neurochirurgica2022

Research reporting in cubital tunnel syndrome studies: an analysis of the literature.

Nicholas F Hug, Brandon W Smith, Sarada Sakamuri, Michael Jensen, David A Purger, Robert J Spinner, Thomas J Wilson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Acta neurochirurgica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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.

Nicholas F HugDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, 453 Quarry Road, 250E, Stanford, Palo Alto, CA, 94304-5327, USA.
Brandon W SmithDepartment of Neurosurgery, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Sarada SakamuriDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, 453 Quarry Road, 250E, Stanford, Palo Alto, CA, 94304-5327, USA.
Michael JensenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, 453 Quarry Road, 250E, Stanford, Palo Alto, CA, 94304-5327, USA.
David A PurgerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, 453 Quarry Road, 250E, Stanford, Palo Alto, CA, 94304-5327, USA.
Robert J SpinnerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Thomas J WilsonDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, 453 Quarry Road, 250E, Stanford, Palo Alto, CA, 94304-5327, USA. wilsontj@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9688-9104

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThere is a strong need for a set of consensus outcomes to be utilized for future studies on cubital tunnel syndrome. The goal was to assess the outcome measures utilized in the cubital tunnel syndrome literature as a way of measuring popularity/acceptability and then to perform a literature review for the most commonly used outcomes.

methodsA literature search was performed using the pubmed.gov database and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). For each article, the following data were abstracted: study type, motor outcome(s), sensory outcome(s), composite outcome(s), patient-reported outcome (PRO) metric(s), pain outcome(s), psychological outcome(s), electrodiagnostic outcome(s), and any other outcomes that were used.

resultsA composite outcome was reported in 52/85 (61%) studies, with the modified Bishop score (27/85; 32%) most common. A motor outcome was reported in 44/85 (52%) studies, with dynamometry (38/85; 45%) most common. The majority of studies (55%) did not report a sensory outcome. The majority of studies (52%) did not report a PRO. A specific pain outcome was reported in the minority (23/85; 27%), with the visual analogue scale (VAS) (22/85; 26%) most common. Pre- and postoperative electrodiagnostic results were presented in 22/85 studies (26%). DISCUSSION: Understanding current clinical practice and historical outcomes reporting provides a foundation for discussion regarding the development of a core outcome set for cubital tunnel syndrome. We hope that the data provided in the current study will stoke a discussion that will culminate in a consensus statement for research reporting in cubital tunnel syndrome studies.

Indexed as

Cubital Tunnel SyndromeDecompression, SurgicalHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePainUlnar NerveClinical researchCore outcome measuresCubital tunnel syndromeUlnar nerve

Identifiers

PMID34993620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.