ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2025
Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments in the Preoperative Evaluation of Cubital Tunnel Syndrome.
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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Patient-reported outcomes are used routinely to assess disease severity in patients with cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS). This study aimed to compare the relationships of patient-reported outcomes with clinical examination, electrodiagnostic (EDX), and ultrasound (US) measures. Methods: Twenty-four patients presenting to an academic center with symptoms consistent with isolated CuTS were prospectively enrolled. Clinical examination measures were collected, including grip strength, key pinch, 2-point discrimination, presence of Tinel sign, and elbow flexion test result. Patients underwent EDX evaluation, and US was used to measure the cross-sectional area of the ulnar nerve around the elbow. Patients completed 3 questionnaires: Patient-Rated Ulnar Nerve Evaluation (PRUNE), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH). Questionnaire scores and clinical examination measurements were stratified based on EDX and US status. Pearson's correlations were used to assess the associations of questionnaire scores with objective measures. Results: Significant correlation in PROMIS-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), PROMIS-Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI), PROMIS-Depression (PROMIS-D), PROMIS-Upper Extremity (PROMIS-UE), and DASH scores were observed between EDX-positive and -negative groups, while no significant correlation was seen between US- positive and -negative groups. Two-point discrimination significantly correlated with PRUNE, PROMIS-PF, PROMIS-UE, and DASH scores. All patient-reported outcome measures significantly correlated with sensory amplitude. PROMIS-D weakly correlated with maximum ulnar nerve cross-sectional area. No significant correlations between patient-reported outcome measures and motor EDX outcomes were observed. Conclusions: Patient-reported symptom severity is more closely associated with EDX diagnosis than US status. PROMIS-PF and DASH displayed stronger correlations to objective measures than other patient-reported outcome measures. Sensory amplitude was the strongest predictor of subjective symptom severity relative to other measures. Type of study/level of evidence: Diagnostic II.
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.