ArticleProgress in rehabilitation medicine2022
Cross-sectional Area Ratio of Median-to-Ulnar and Median-to-Superficial Radial Nerve at the Wrist for Diagnosis of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.
Article in Progress in rehabilitation medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic properties for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) of the median-to-ulnar cross-sectional area ratio (MUR) and the median-to-superficial radial cross-sectional area ratio (MRR). Methods: A case-control study was conducted. A physiatrist, blinded to the CTS status of the subjects, assessed the cross-sectional area of the median nerve (CSA-m), MUR, and MRR at the distal wrist crease for the CTS and control groups. The relationship of CSA-m, MUR, and MRR with CTS severity was tested using Spearman's correlation. The overall diagnostic accuracy was determined using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The cut-off values to diagnose CTS were chosen to achieve similar values for sensitivity and specificity. Results: There were 32 hands in the CTS group and 33 hands in the control group. The correlations of CSA-m, MUR, and MRR with CTS severity were 0.66, 0.56, and 0.34, respectively. The AUCs of CSA-m, MUR, and MRR were 0.86 (95%CI: 0.77-0.95), 0.79 (0.69-0.90), and 0.69 (0.56-0.82), respectively. The cut-off values of CSA-m, MUR, and MRR were 12 mm Conclusions: : MUR and MRR had acceptable diagnostic abilities but did not show superiority over CSA-m for CTS diagnosis.
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.