ReviewJB & JS open access
Carpal Tunnel Release Versus Local Corticosteroid Injection for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in JB & JS open access. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Carpal tunnel release (CTR) or local corticosteroid injection (LCI) is used for the management of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). While some practitioners start with CTR right away, others tend to begin with LCI. Both approaches are widely used, and individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have disagreed about the superiority of one approach over the other for CTS management. Therefore, a meta-analysis of RCTs would be helpful in informing clinicians. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were searched up until August 8, 2025. Inclusion criteria consisted of English or non-English language RCTs comparing CTR with LCI in the management of CTS. The studied outcomes were management failure, improvement in symptoms, and improvement in function at several postoperative timepoints. Results: Twelve RCTs representing a total of 1799 patients, with 880 undergoing CTR and 919 undergoing LCI, were included. There was no difference in failure rates between the 2 groups at 1, 3, and 6 months; function improvement at 3 and 6 months; and symptoms improvement at 3 months. However, the LCI group had a higher rate of failure at 1 year (odds ratio [OR] = 18.41; p = 0.01) and latest follow-up (OR = 5.38; p = 0.003), and the CTR group had a better improvement in symptoms at 6 months (standardized means difference [SMD] = 0.39; p = 0.03) and 1 year (SMD = 0.30; p = 0.01). Conclusion: This meta-analysis revealed that CTR and LCI were equivalent management options for CTS for the first 6 months after treatment. However, CTR was superior at longer follow-up. Level of Evidence: Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.