Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38818094›Full record

ArticleShoulder & elbow2024

Self-assessed outcomes following double fascicular nerve transfer for elbow flexion.

Hazel Brown, Tom Quick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Shoulder & elbow, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Hazel BrownPeripheral Nerve Injury Unit, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, Stanmore, Middlesex, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9475-1846
Tom QuickPeripheral Nerve Injury Unit, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, Stanmore, Middlesex, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Double fascicular nerve transfer (DFT) is often performed to re-animate the elbow flexors. Studies of motor recovery following this surgery have exclusively reported on the objective outcome of muscle power. Questionnaire studies allow researchers and clinicians to learn from patients and better direct care towards their needs. To date, no research has focused on self-assessed recovery following DFT for elbow flexion. Methods: This observational cross-sectional study aimed to give an account of patient-assessed outcomes following DFT. The bespoke questionnaire included: (a) self-reported strength and (b) the Stanmore percentage of normal elbow assessment. Results: Sixty-two patients participated in the study. Participants were grouped according to time post-surgery. Statistical analysis confirmed that data were comparable between groups ( Self-assessed strength: Median scores were 0.5 kg <2 years post-surgery, 3 kg at 2 to 5 years, 2 kg at 5 to 8 years and 1.3 kg in the >8 years group. Stanmore Percentage of Normal Elbow Assessment: Mean scores (%) were 35 (SD ± 25) <2 years, 56 (SD ± 31) at 2 to 5 years, 44 (SD ± 25) at 5 to 8 years and 46 (SD ± 29) >8 years groups. Conclusions: This is the first study of self-assessed recovery following DFT. Scores peaked around 4 years post-operation. Future research should focus on the long-term self-reported outcome of nerve transfer surgery.

Indexed as

brachial plexus injurynerve transfer surgerypatient-reported outcomes

Identifiers

PMID38818094
PMCPMC11135200

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.