You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Evaluation of the scratch collapse test for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume), July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1177/1753193413497191 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
H. S. Makanji, S. J. E. Becker, C. S. Mudgal, J. B. Jupiter, D. Ring |
| Abstract |
This prospective study measured and compared the diagnostic performance characteristics of various clinical signs and physical examination manoeuvres for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), including the scratch collapse test. Eighty-eight adult patients that were prescribed electrophysiological testing to diagnose CTS were enrolled in the study. Attending surgeons documented symptoms and results of standard clinical manoeuvres. The scratch collapse test had a sensitivity of 31%, which was significantly lower than the sensitivity of Phalen's test (67%), Durkan's test (77%), Tinel's test (43%), CTS-6 lax (88%), and CTS-6 stringent (54%). The scratch test had a specificity of 61%, which was significantly lower than the specificity of thenar atrophy (96%) and significantly higher than the specificity of Durkan's test (18%) and CTS-6 lax (13%). The sensitivity of the scratch collapse test was not superior to other clinical signs and physical examination manoeuvers for CTS, and the specificity of the scratch collapse test was superior to that of Durkan's test and CTS-6 lax. Further studies should seek to limit the influence of a patient's clinical presentation on scratch test performance and assess the scratch test's inter-rater reliability. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 17% |
| Brazil | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Germany | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 70 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 19% |
| Unknown | 24 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 1% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 25 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 February 2022.
All research outputs
#7,079,052
of 23,151,189 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume)
#276
of 1,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,622
of 195,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume)
#2
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,151,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,220 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 195,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.