ArticleOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)2025
Diagnostic test performance of screening questions for neurosensory hand-arm vibration injury.
Article in Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 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.
- 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
backgroundThere is a need for efficient screening for hand-arm vibration injury.
aimsTo evaluate the diagnostic test performance of screening questions for neurosensory injury in relation to clinical testing among hand-arm vibration (HAV)-exposed workers.
methodsHAV-exposed subjects responded to a screening survey on subjective perception of touch, warmth, cold, and vibration, as well as grip strength and manual dexterity. Perception of monofilament, two-point discrimination, temperature rollers, and tuning fork was tested on the index and little fingers of both hands, while grip strength was tested using a hydraulic dynamometer. Diagnostic test performance characteristics were calculated based on crosstabulation of survey responses and outcomes of clinical testing.
resultsOur study recruited 225 subjects with exposure durations between one and 43 years. The sensitivity and specificity for the question about impaired ability to feel touch compared with monofilament was 65% and 71%; impaired ability to feel heat compared with temperature rollers 50% and 75%; impaired ability to feel cold compared with temperature rollers 39% and 77%; impaired ability to feel vibration compared with tuning fork 49% and 84%; reduced grip strength compared with hydraulic dynamometer 83% and 58%; and difficulty fastening buttons compared with two-point discrimination 40% and 76%, respectively.
conclusionsThe diagnostic test performance of the currently used screening survey for neurosensory injury among HAV-exposed workers needs to be improved. Future development should focus on establishing more specific questions, balanced response alternatives, and a more sophisticated interpretation of the responses, possibly using an index made up of several screening questions.
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.