↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of ultrasonography and nerve conduction studies in the diagnosing of carpal tunnel syndrome: clinical trial on accuracy

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
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.
Title
Effectiveness of ultrasonography and nerve conduction studies in the diagnosing of carpal tunnel syndrome: clinical trial on accuracy
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12891-018-2036-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benedito Felipe Rabay Pimentel, Flávio Faloppa, Marcel Jun Sugawara Tamaoki, João Carlos Belloti

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of two diagnostic tests routinely used for diagnosing carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS)-ultrasonography (US) and nerve conduction studies (NCS)-by comparing their accuracy based on surgical results, with the remission of paresthesia as the reference standard. We enrolled 115 patients, all of the female gender with a high probability of a clinical diagnosis of CTS. All patients underwent US and NCS for a diagnosis and subsequent surgical treatment. As a primary outcome, the accuracy of the US and NCS diagnoses was measured by comparing their diagnoses compared with those determined by the surgical outcomes. Their accuracy was secondarily evaluated based on before and after scores of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ). Overall, 104 patients (90.4%) were diagnosed with CTS by the surgical reference standard, 97 (84.3%) by NCS, and 90 (78.3%) by US. The concordance of NCS and surgical treatment (p < 0.001; kappa = 0.648) was superior to that of US and surgical treatment (p < 0.001; kappa = 0.423). The sensitivity and specificity of US and NCS were similar (p = 1.000 and p = 0.152, respectively: McNemar's test). The BCTQ scores were lower after surgery in patients diagnosed by both US and NCS (p < 0.001and p < 0.001, respectively: analysis of variance). US and NCS effectively diagnosed CTS with good sensitivity but were not effective enough to rule out a suspicion of CTS. This study was registered at September, 10 th, 2015, and the registration number was NCT02553811 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Other 4 14%
Researcher 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 45%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 7 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 April 2018.
All research outputs
#12,785,784
of 14,465,213 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,612
of 2,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,583
of 278,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,465,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 278,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them