ArticleCureus2025
A Comparative Study of the Presence of the Palmaris Longus Tendon Using Physical and Ultrasound Examination.
Article in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The palmaris longus muscle (PLM), located in the forearm's anterior compartment, plays an essential role in wrist flexion. Its tendon is often used for grafting because of its accessibility and minimal function. However, its anatomy varies, with congenital absence being the most common variation. This study aims to detect the incidence of the palmaris longus tendon (PLT) and compare physical examination methods with standard ultrasonography, as previous studies have only utilized physical examinations. Methods In this study, 61 participants were examined bilaterally (122 wrists) using three different physical examination methods: the Schaeffer, Thompson, and Mishra I tests. The ultrasonography test was conducted by a single observer using a GE LOGIQ e ultrasound system (GE HealthCare Technologies, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), equipped with a linear transducer with a frequency range of 12-15 Hz, attached transversely to the anterior distal forearm. The tendon was visualized anterior to the median nerve, medial to the flexor carpi radialis, and superficial to the flexor retinaculum. To assess the difference between physical examination and ultrasound, statistical analyses were conducted on subgroups using a t-test. Additionally, PLT incidence was evaluated according to gender, ethnicity, and hand dominance. Results On ultrasound examination, the PLT was detected in 72.13% of wrists bilaterally (n = 88), 5.74% unilaterally (n = 7), and was absent in 22.13% of the 122 wrists examined (n = 27). Physical examination methods detected an average of 56.28% bilaterally (n = 68.66), 6.56% unilaterally (n = 8), and 37.16% as absent (n = 45.33). Total detection by ultrasound was 77.87% (n = 95), while the physical examination average was 62.84% (n = 76.66). Overall, there is a significant difference between the physical examination methods and ultrasonography in detecting PLT, with ultrasonography demonstrating greater accuracy. It should also be noted that the prevalence of PLT is not affected by gender. Conclusion Ultrasonography is crucial in clinical settings to confirm the presence of the PLT, even when a physical examination is inconclusive. Physical and ultrasound approaches can, therefore, be combined to avoid producing incorrect negative results when locating the PLT for tendon grafting.
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.