ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026
Defining Diagnostic Criteria for Neurogenic Thoracic Outlet Syndrome: An Expert Consensus.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome (nTOS) can present itself in a number of ways, often resulting in diagnostic ambiguity. Purpose: To establish a consensus among upper extremity experts using the Delphi method to determine the most clinically relevant criteria in distinguishing nTOS to help create a diagnostic algorithm. Study Design: Consensus statement. Methods: A panel of 20 upper extremity experts rated the importance of 54 different clinical items in reference to distinguishing nTOS. Items were ranked on a scale from 0 (least important) to 10 (most important). The mean and standard deviation for each item's rankings were calculated. The Cronbach alpha (α) value was used to determine the degree of concordance among the panelists' rankings. Analogous items with similarly high rankings were combined to help develop the final criteria. Results: A Cronbach α value of .936 was calculated, indicating a high degree of consensus among the experts' responses. Similar items with higher rankings were combined to help develop the final criteria. The 5 criteria deemed clinically important for nTOS were (1) a positive response to injections (pectoralis minor, anterior scalene, middle scalene); (2) upper or lower trunk radiating symptoms that worsen with supraclavicular provocative maneuvers (scalene pressure or positive Tinel sign over scalenes); (3) upper or lower trunk symptoms that worsen with infraclavicular provocative maneuvers (positive Tinel sign medial to coracoid or tenderness to palpation over the coracoid process); (4) reproduction of pain with 90° of abduction in external rotation or upper limb tension test, and (5) participation in work/exercise requiring repetitive arm stress (overhead athletes, throwing sports, protracted posture at work, etc). Conclusion: This study proposed 5 clinical criteria for distinguishing nTOS that were agreed upon by 20 upper extremity, nerve, and vascular surgery experts. These criteria can be used to develop a future diagnostic algorithm for nTOS, allowing for further research and more efficient nTOS treatment.
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.