ArticleHand (New York, N.Y.)2025
Where Does Ultrasound Fit in the Diagnostic Algorithm for Cubital Tunnel Syndrome?
Article in Hand (New York, N.Y.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy analysis of small-incision in situ decompression under ultrasound combined with shear-wave elastography in the treatment of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Preoperative visualization of the greater occipital nerve with magnetic resonance imaging in candidates for occipital nerve decompression for headaches.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUltrasound (US) has emerged as a promising supplement to electrodiagnostic studies (EDX) in the diagnosis of cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS) and has potential to be performed by novice operators. Our objective is to understand the discrepancies in assessment between the two modalities and to assess the utility of US in CuTS diagnosis by a novice operator.
methodsPatients who presented to a single tertiary academic medical center and clinically diagnosed with CuTS were prospectively enrolled. Electrodiagnostic studies were performed along with US measurements of the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the ulnar nerve by both a board-certified physiatrist and novice operator. Electrodiagnostic study and US outcomes were compared among four diagnostic impression groups: EDX-/US-, EDX+/US-, EDX-/US+, and EDX+/US+.
resultsSixteen patients were classified as abnormal by both EDX and US, 14 were classified abnormal by US only, 3 were classified abnormal by EDX only, and 6 were classified normal by both EDX and US (
conclusionsUltrasound detected a greater proportion of patients as abnormal than EDX. A subset of patients with clinical diagnoses of CuTS had normal sensory amplitudes but increased maximum nerve CSAs. Competency in US may be easily acquired with minimal training, suggesting its potential to be extended for use by other members of the health care team.
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.