ArticleActa neurologica Belgica2026
Frequency of posterior interosseous nerve syndrome and its impact on clinical outcomes in patients with lateral epicondylitis: A prospective, controlled, electrophysiological study.
Article in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2026. 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
introductionLateral epicondylitis (LE) is a musculoskeletal disorder characterized by pain around the lateral epicondyle. Posterior interosseous nerve syndrome (PINS), a rare neuropathy caused by radial nerve compression, can mimic or coexist with LE, complicating diagnosis. This study aimed to evaluate the electrophysiological presence of PINS in LE and determine its impact on symptoms.
methodsThis prospective study included 62 patients diagnosed with LE and 54 healthy controls. Electrophysiological examinations were performed on all patients in the LE group to investigate the presence of PINS. Subsequently, PINS-positive and PINS-negative patients within the LE group underwent a detailed clinical evaluation, including provocative tests, joint range of motion (ROM), hand grip strength, and symptom scoring using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE).
resultsPINS was identified in 19.4% of LE patients and 1.9% of controls (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between PINS-positive and PINS-negative patients in the LE group regarding provocative tests, joint ROM, grip strength, VAS, or PRTEE scores. The diagnosis of PINS was made solely based on electrophysiological findings. DISCUSSION: This study highlights the importance of electrophysiological evaluation in the differential diagnosis of PINS and LE, especially in treatment-resistant cases. Although PINS did not significantly impact clinical parameters such as grip strength or symptom scores, its notable prevalence in LE patients underscores the need for its consideration in refractory LE cases. Further large-scale, controlled studies are needed to explore this relationship comprehensively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40853587What 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.