ArticleJournal of occupational health2025
The diagnostic test performance of clinical point-of-care testing in relation to quantitative sensory testing for neurosensory injury among workers exposed to hand-arm vibration.
Article in Journal of occupational health, 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.
- Assessment of Sensitivity and Specificity of Common Sensory Tests in Diagnosing Digital Nerve Lacerations.Muscle & nerve · 2026Article
- Factors influencing Purdue Pegboard test results among hand-arm vibration-exposed workers.Occupational medicine (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEarly detection of neurosensory injury among workers exposed to hand-arm vibration is crucial. The aim of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic test performance of clinical point-of-care testing using a tuning fork and temperature rollers in relation to vibrotactile and thermal quantitative sensory testing.
methodsWe recruited 225 vibration-exposed workers who underwent clinical point-of-care testing using a Rydel Seiffer tuning fork and temperature rollers (25°C and 40°C) applied to the distal phalanges of the index and little fingers bilaterally. Quantitative sensory testing was conducted at the same locations. Sensitivity, specificity, and other measures of diagnostic test performance were calculated.
resultsThe study sample consisted of 208 men and 17 women with a median (IQR) age of 38 (26) years, and with a median (IQR) hand-arm vibration exposure duration of 12 (21) years. Using vibrotactile quantitative sensory testing as the reference method, the sensitivity for the Rydel Seiffer tuning fork to detect reduced perception of vibration ranged from 30.0% to 61.1%, depending on the tested finger. The corresponding values for specificity were 91.1% to 94.4%. The sensitivity of temperature roller discrimination in relation to warm detection thresholds ranged from 31.6% to 48.2%, and the specificity from 82.7% to 87.5%. The corresponding sensitivity of temperature roller discrimination in relation to cold detection thresholds ranged from 28.9% to 42.5%, and the specificity from 86.0% to 94.7%.
conclusionsThe sensitivity of clinical point-of-care testing was rather low, indicating that quantitative sensory testing adds value to the diagnostic procedure.
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.