Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2019
Impact of technical variations on the ring-finger test for carpal tunnel syndrome.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schulze Daniel Gregor, Nordby Karl-Christian, Cvancarova Småstuen Milada, Clemm Thomas, Grotle Margreth, Zwart John Anker, Nilsen Kristian Bernhard
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess if recording the sensory latencies of the median and ulnar nerves one-by-one (consecutive) or at the same time (simultaneous) in the ring-finger test for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) will show equivalent results or if it will lead to a different clinical classification of patients.
METHODS: We assessed the limits of agreement between the simultaneous and the consecutive method based on the median- ulnar sensory latency difference derived by both methods in 80 subjects and compared the number of minimal CTS cases identified by the two methods.
RESULTS: Limits of agreement ranged from -0.23 to 0.29 ms. A significantly higher proportion of subjects with minimal CTS (only detectable by using the comparison test) was found using the simultaneous method (n = 8 and 2, respectively; p = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: The two methods have a poor to moderate agreement as indicated by the range of the limits of agreement (0.5 ms).
SIGNIFICANCE: Even small methodological changes to the ring-finger test can lead to results with different clinical meaning in the same individual and one should be aware of which method was used when interpreting results.
METHODS: We assessed the limits of agreement between the simultaneous and the consecutive method based on the median- ulnar sensory latency difference derived by both methods in 80 subjects and compared the number of minimal CTS cases identified by the two methods.
RESULTS: Limits of agreement ranged from -0.23 to 0.29 ms. A significantly higher proportion of subjects with minimal CTS (only detectable by using the comparison test) was found using the simultaneous method (n = 8 and 2, respectively; p = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: The two methods have a poor to moderate agreement as indicated by the range of the limits of agreement (0.5 ms).
SIGNIFICANCE: Even small methodological changes to the ring-finger test can lead to results with different clinical meaning in the same individual and one should be aware of which method was used when interpreting results.