ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2025
The Current State of Outcome Measurements After Peripheral Nerve Injury: A Systematic Review.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 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.
- Current Gaps and Future Directions in Brachial Plexus, Upper-Extremity and Lower-Extremity Nerve Injuries (Nerve SPACE 2025).Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- Development of a Core Outcomes Set for Peripheral Nerve Injury.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The manner in which outcomes are reported after peripheral nerve injury (PNI) varies tremendously and often centers on surgeon-manual muscle testing. The purpose of our systematic review was to quantify the use of outcome measures after PNI in the contemporary literature (published in 2008 and beyond) and to evaluate which domains of recovery are assessed most frequently. Methods: With the assistance of a medical librarian, we performed a systematic review of the literature published in or after 2008 (to represent the last 15 years) for patients with upper-extremity PNI. We excluded articles with <5 participants, minors, brachial plexus or digital nerve injuries, compressive neuropathies, or <6 months of follow-up. Data were extracted to identify which outcome measures were used in each study, categorizing the outcome measures under the domains of motor, sensory, function, and pain. Results: Of the 4 outcome domains (pain, motor, sensory, and function), motor was reported the most frequently, followed by function. Within the motor category, more than two-thirds of the studies used manual muscle testing for assessment. Half of the articles reported outcomes in 2 of the 4 assessed domains. Pain was the least assessed domain, reported in 11 of 68 articles. Conclusion: While there has been incorporation of functional outcomes, the majority of the literature in the last 15 years remains focused on surgeon-reported muscle testing and does not adequately reflect the multiple domains affected by PNI. Pain is the least frequently reported domain, despite being an issue that frequently vexes PNI patients. Clinical Relevance: There is a need for clinicians and researchers to agree upon a common set of outcome measures for PNI that (A) encompass perspectives of clinicians and patients and (B) reflect multiple domains affected by PNI. This will improve the quality of outcome reporting and facilitate future comparative effectiveness studies.
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.