ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Effect of "normal" versus "mild carpal tunnel syndrome" electrodiagnostic report on surgeon decision and patients clinical outcomes.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThere exist conflicting electrodiagnostic reports between diagnosing mild carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and normal results, depending on the interpretation methods used by electrodiagnosticians. This underscores the necessity for precise clinical guidelines. This study aims to assess how the variation between mild and normal electrophysiological reports impacts (1) subsequent clinical outcomes in patients diagnosed with CTS and (2) physicians' decision-making.
methodsIn a prospective cohort study, we followed 102 patients with suspected CTS who underwent electrodiagnostic studies (EDX). The EDX results for these patients were categorized as either normal or indicative of mild CTS, based on the interpreter's chosen assessment method, which included median-ulnar palmar mixed comparison or median sensory nerve studies. Patient demographics, EDX reports, the choice between surgical or non-surgical treatment, as well as repeated measurements of post-operative pain and paresthesia, were collected at day 0, two weeks, and 12 weeks post treatment.
resultsThe study includes an equal number of patients with mild and normal electrodiagnostic reports, totaling 51 individuals in each group, and revealed no significant differences in their demographic and baseline characteristics. Over time, both groups showed a decrease in symptom severity. Nevertheless, the reduction in pain (P = 0.77 at 12 weeks) and paresthesia (P = 0.32 at 12 weeks) showed no significant differences between the two groups. Furthermore, there were no differences observed between the groups concerning the treatment choices made by the surgeon (P = 0.218).
conclusionWhen EDX reports indicate either normal or mild CTS, it seems that this interpretation doesn't substantially influence a surgeon's decision in selecting the treatment option or the resulting clinical outcome post-treatment. This highlights the importance of clinical assessment rather than relying solely on EDX reports in managing these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II (Prospective cohort study).
Indexed as
Identifiers
39751913What 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.