ArticleRMD open2025
Diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome with ultrasound: should we go more distal?
Article in RMD open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Diagnosis: A Narrative Review of Complementary Roles of Neuromuscular Ultrasound and Electrodiagnostic Studies.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the value of adding the ultradistal level to other more thoroughly studied levels of the carpal tunnel when measuring the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the median nerve (MN) by ultrasound (US) in diagnosing patients with primary carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).
methodsPatients clinically diagnosed with primary CTS and healthy controls were included. The MN-CSA was measured by US at three wrist levels: proximal, distal and ultradistal. The best cut-off to differentiate cases and controls was determined for the CSA and for the difference between levels of the same wrist. The performance of different definitions for US-CTS compared with the clinical diagnosis of CTS was evaluated: (1) CSA above cut-off at each level; (2) CSA-difference above cut-off at each level; (3) ≥1 level with CSA above cut-off and (4) ≥1 CSA-difference above cut-off. Definition 3, excluding the ultradistal level, and combinations of definitions were also tested.
resultsIn total, 219 patients and 39 controls were included. The CSA was higher in patients (10.5-16.8 mm
conclusionsAdding the ultradistal level improves the performance of US for diagnosing CTS. We suggest adding it in clinical practice when investigating CTS.
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.