ReviewJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2026
Diagnostic accuracy of the Hoffmann-Tinel sign for carpal tunnel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis with comparison of techniques.
Review in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Hoffmann-Tinel sign is used to diagnose and assess Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) but reported diagnostic accuracy varies widely, with multiple methods used to perform the test. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the diagnostic accuracy of the Hoffmann-Tinel test when performed using fingertip percussion versus tendon hammer percussion, to establish the superior method which could standardise clinical practice. Methods: A diagnostic test accuracy systematic review using PubMed, Scopus and Embase (November 2025) identified studies that reported sensitivity/specificity data and the method of elicitation for the Hoffmann-Tinel sign in diagnosing CTS. Studies were grouped into fingertip percussion or tendon hammer percussion and compared using a bivariate random-effects model to generate pooled sensitivity, specificity, forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves. The review was registered on PROSPERO: CRD420251238061. Results: Sixteen studies involving 2471 participants were included. Nine studies (1322 participants) using tendon hammer percussion demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 62.1% (95% CI [52.8%, 70.6%]) and pooled specificity 78.9% (95% CI [62.4%, 89.4]). Eight studies (1196 participants) using fingertip percussion demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 40.0% (95% CI [30.9%, 49.8%]) and pooled specificity 86.1% (95% CI [70.8%, 94.0%]). Prediction intervals indicated substantial heterogeneity with diagnostic performance varied according to test method. Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of the Hoffmann-Tinel sign for CTS is moderate when using tendon hammer percussion, but poor when using fingertip percussion. As the method of elicitation influences diagnostic accuracy, the method used should be standardised. The more accurate method of tendon hammer percussion should be preferred in clinical practice, with this being reflected in guideline recommendations. Levels of evidence: Therapeutic Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.
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.