ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022
Diagnostic performance of preoperative ultrasound for traumatic brachial plexus root injury: A comparison study with an electrophysiology study.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Accurate preoperative assessment for traumatic brachial plexus injury (BPI) is critical for clinicians to establish a treatment plan. The objective of this study was to investigate the diagnostic performance of preoperative ultrasound (US) through comparison with an electrophysiology study (EPS) in the assessment of traumatic brachial plexus (BP) root injury. Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective study in patients with traumatic BPI who had preoperative US and EPS, excluding obstetric palsy and other nontraumatic neuropathies. US examination was performed on an EPIQ 5 color Doppler equipment. EPS was performed on a Keypoint 9033A07 Electromyograph/Evoked Potentials Equipment, testing electromyography (EMG), nerve conduction studies (NCS), and somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP). Each BP root of all patients was assessed by US and EPS as completely injured or incompletely injured, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy were calculated based on the correlation with intraoperative findings. The accuracy of US and EPS were compared using the McNemar test. The added benefit of US was evaluated by comparing the sensitivity and specificity between the combined tests with EPS using the McNemar test. Results: This study included 49 patients with traumatic BPI who underwent BP surgeries from October 2018 to September 2022. Surgical exploration confirmed 89 completely injured BP roots in 28 patients. US correctly detected 80 completely injured BP roots (sensitivity, 0.899; specificity, 0.981; PPV, 0.964; NPV, 0.944; accuracy, 0.951). EPS correctly detected 75 completely injured BP roots (sensitivity, 0.843; specificity, 0.929; PPV, 0.872; NPV, 0.912; accuracy, 0.898). US showed significantly higher accuracy than EPS ( Conclusion: Preoperative US is an effective diagnostic tool in the assessment of traumatic BP root injury. US had higher accuracy than EPS in this study. Sensitivity and specificity were significantly higher than EPS when US was combined with EPS.
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.