ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2023
Physical Examination Versus Ultrasonography for Detection of Ulnar Nerve Subluxation in Professional Baseball Pitchers.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the importance of accurately detecting ulnar nerve subluxation in vulnerable athletes, few studies have compared the performance of physical examination and ultrasound in this population. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic validity of physical examination versus ultrasound in detecting ulnar nerve subluxation at the cubital tunnel of the elbow in professional baseball pitchers. It was hypothesized that ultrasound would more sensitively detect ulnar nerve subluxation. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Physical and sonographic examinations for ulnar nerve subluxation were performed on 186 elbows of 95 consecutive male professional baseball pitchers (age, 17-30 years) as a routine part of their spring training assessments. Provocative maneuvers consisting of the Tinel and elbow flexion-compression tests were evaluated over the cubital tunnel. The validity of physical examination for detecting ulnar nerve subluxation at the elbow was determined using ultrasonographic examination for comparison. Results: Ulnar nerve subluxation was detected by physical examination in 58 (31.2%) elbows and by ultrasonography in 61 (32.8%) elbows. Of the 58 elbows with positive physical examination, 47 were positive on ultrasound. Using a positive ultrasound as a reference, the accuracy of the physical examination was 86.6%, with 77% sensitivity and 91.2% specificity. The positive and negative predictive values of physical examination were 81% and 89.1%, respectively. There was no relationship between nerve instability and positive provocative tests overall, in dominant versus nondominant arms, or in right versus left arms ( Conclusion: Physical examination had moderate sensitivity and high specificity for detecting ulnar nerve subluxation at the cubital tunnel of the elbow when compared with ultrasound. These findings suggest that when detecting the presence of a subluxating ulnar nerve is most important, it may be advisable to obtain an ultrasound evaluation instead of relying on a physical examination; however, physical examination alone may be appropriate for ruling out subluxation.
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.