SynthesisJBJS reviews2026
Differences in Diagnosing Tarsal Tunnel Syndrome Across the Literature: A Systematic Review and a Call for Standardization.
Synthesis in JBJS reviews, 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
backgroundThe lack of a gold standard in tarsal tunnel syndrome (TTS) diagnosis leads to diagnostic inconsistencies and variation in patient selection for treatment. Therefore, the aim of this review is to summarize the diagnostic criteria used in current studies on TTS based upon this best-evidence synthesis.
methodsThree databases were searched to identify all studies on TTS. Studies were included when they included (1) diagnosis or treatment of TTS as the primary focus, (2) a description of the diagnosis of TTS, (3) an original data set of TTS cases, and (4) a minimum of 10 adult patients diagnosed with TTS. A best-evidence synthesis was used to summarize the results.
resultsIn total, 4,213 patients were represented in 82 included studies. Among the varying diagnostic methods employed, aside from clinical symptoms, provocative testing was most often used (in 94% of studies, mandatory for diagnosis in 41% of studies) with the Tinel sign being the most prevalent (used in 89% of studies). Sensitivities of provocative tests, electrodiagnostic, and ultrasound measurements showed significant variability.
conclusionWe provided an overview of the diagnostic tools and workups reported in the literature on TTS. Our findings show that the lack of a standardized diagnostic approach results in considerable variability in clinical practice. Alongside typical clinical symptoms, the Tinel sign is the most frequently used diagnostic test. The varying sensitivities reported in literature underscore the need for evidence-based diagnostic guidelines on TTS diagnosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.