ArticleEuropean journal of translational myology2026
Ultrasonography versus electrodiagnosis of median nerve before and after open carpal tunnel release surgery: which can better diagnose, predict and assess postoperative improvement?
Article in European journal of translational myology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnosis of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) relies on a structured clinical approach with Electrodiagnostic Studies (EDX) accepted as the gold standard in the diagnosis. Yet, Ultrasound (US) has emerged as a non-invasive alternative especially in assessing morphological changes. And so, to accurately diagnose CTS by a valid non-painful simple tool, objectively assess postoperative improvement and finally to predict postoperative clinical outcome from preoperative data; clinical, EDX, and US data were collected, compared and correlated pre- and 1 month postoperative. While US achieved diagnostic accuracy of 80% in CTS diagnosis, particularly Wrist Cross-Sectional Area (wCSA) and Wrist-Forearm Ratio (WFR), it remains less sensitive than EDX. The diagnosis of CTS using wCSA/WFR achieved a sensitivity of 80.0%/80.0% and a specificity of 100%/85.7%, at a cutoff score of 12.5mm2/2.1 or above. In addition, linear regression analysis showed that only compound motor action potential (CMAP) amplitude could predict postoperative clinical improvement. Sensitivity of EDX (93.33%) overcome that of the US in detection of postoperative improvement. US is less sensitive than EDX in diagnosing CTS, assessment and prediction of postoperative clinical outcome.
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.