SynthesisAnnals of medicine2025
Diagnostic accuracy of history taking, physical examination, and auxiliary examination for thumb osteoarthritis: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Annals of medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo conduct a systematic review to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of history taking, physical examination, and auxiliary examination for thumb osteoarthritis (OA).
methodsMEDLINE ALL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science Core Collection, and CINAHL were searched up to October 2023. Studies focused on patients with hand or thumb pain suspected of thumb OA, considering any diagnostic methods as the index test, with any diagnostic assessment of thumb OA as the reference standard were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy were extracted. QUADAS and GRADE were applied to assess the evidence.
resultsSeven studies were included. History taking (two studies, 1096 participants) showed very low certainty of evidence;physical examination (five studies, 427 participants) revealed moderate certainty of evidence; auxiliary examinations (one study, 20 participants) indicated low certainty of evidence. History taking showed sensitivity of 47% to 100%, specificity of 40% to 63%, and accuracy of 40% to 80%. Physical examination demonstrated sensitivity of 2% to 100%, specificity of 75% to 100%, and accuracy of 47% to 98%. Auxiliary examination exhibited sensitivity of 72%, specificity of 86%, and accuracy of 76%. The adduction test, extension test, and metacarpal pressure-shear tests were reported to have accuracy above 90% based on two studies.
conclusionsBased on few studies, the diagnostic accuracy of history taking and physical examination for thumb OA varied across studies, while knowledge about auxiliary examination was limited. The adduction test, extension test, and metacarpal pressure-shear test are recommended for thumb OA diagnosis.
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.