ArticleMuscle & nerve2026
Assessment of Sensitivity and Specificity of Common Sensory Tests in Diagnosing Digital Nerve Lacerations.
Article in Muscle & nerve, 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
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
aimsDigital nerve lacerations are common. Current methods employed to differentiate intact and transected digital nerves lack diagnostic accuracy. This may result in patients with intact nerves undergoing unnecessary surgery. The objective of the study was to determine the best diagnostic method for detecting true sensory nerve transections and to delineate the sensitivities and specificities of common sensory tests.
methodsPatients aged 18-65 years with suspected complete digital nerve lacerations were recruited. Sensory testing including static two-point discrimination (s2PD), Semmes-Weinstein Monofilaments, and Quantitative Sensory Testing were used prior to surgical exposure to evaluate different categories of sensory nerve fibers. Likelihood ratios, sensitivity, and specificity of each test were compared to direct visualization intraoperatively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine the area under the curve (AUC) for each test.
resultsOf the 60 patients recruited, 41 (68%) had complete digital nerve transections while 19 (32%) had intact nerves. Heat pain threshold testing showed the greatest AUC at 0.812 ± 0.067 with a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 65% at a cutoff of 22.1 just noticeable difference (JND). However, combining s2PD (7 mm, 100% sensitivity, 32% specificity) and warm detection threshold (WDT) (25 JND, 100% sensitivity, 37% specificity) in a two-step algorithm achieved 100% sensitivity and increased the specificity to 58%. DISCUSSION: Implementing a two-step diagnostic algorithm combining s2PD and WDT can effectively diagnose complete digital nerve laceration with high sensitivity and improved specificity. These findings underscore the utility of both tests in accurately identifying complete digital nerve lacerations.
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.