SynthesisBJS open2025
Time to recovery following open and endoscopic carpal tunnel decompression: meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
Abstract
backgroundCarpal tunnel release (CTR) can be performed using either an open or endoscopic approach. The patient recovery trajectories remain poorly understood. This study aimed to define and compare patient-reported recovery following unilateral open and endoscopic CTR.
methodsA PRISMA-compliant, preregistered (CRD42023427718) systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases on 4 July 2023 and 21 August 2024. Studies were included if they reported recovery data (patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)) at predefined time points for adults undergoing unilateral CTR. Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire and Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores were extracted. Standardized mean change (SMC) scores from baseline were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. An innovative modification of the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tools was used to evaluate the risk of bias.
resultsIn all, 49 studies were included (4546 participants included in the analysis; 3137 open CTR, 1409 endoscopic CTR). Both approaches improved PROM scores over 12 weeks, with early (4-week) outcomes strongly correlating (>0.89) with later (12-week) outcomes. Symptoms continued improving up to 104 weeks. At 1 week, open CTR showed symptomatic deterioration (SMC 10.29; 95% confidence interval (c.i.) 6.35 and 14.21 respectively), comparatively, endoscopic CTR demonstrated an improvement (SMC -2.83; 95% c.i. -7.80 and 2.14 respectively). By 2 weeks, symptom severity remained slightly worse in open CTR, but confidence intervals overlapped from week 3 and thereafter open CTR showed greater symptomatic improvement. Most studies had a high risk of bias and measured outcomes too infrequently for a granular comparison.
conclusionsPatient-reported recovery trajectories for CTR can inform patient counselling and future research. Endoscopic CTR may result in fewer symptoms in the first 2 weeks, but open CTR may offer comparable or potentially greater improvement thereafter. Future trials with high-frequency PROM capture should prioritize early (first 3 weeks) and long-term (≥24 weeks) outcomes.
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.