抓痕塌陷试验与其他临床诊断试验诊断腕管综合征的能力比较：一项前瞻性病例对照研究

IF 0.2 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS

Current Orthopaedic Practice Pub Date : 2022-11-21 DOI:10.1097/BCO.0000000000001193

Farid Najd Mazhar, Hooman Shariatzadeh, Dan Hosseinzadeh

{"title":"抓痕塌陷试验与其他临床诊断试验诊断腕管综合征的能力比较：一项前瞻性病例对照研究","authors":"Farid Najd Mazhar, Hooman Shariatzadeh, Dan Hosseinzadeh","doi":"10.1097/BCO.0000000000001193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Diagnostic performance of the scratch collapse test for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is not clear. This study evaluated its diagnostic capability for CTS diagnosis in comparison with other widely used clinical CTS tests, including the Tinel’s sign, Phalen’s test, and Durkan’s test. Methods: In a prospective case-control study, 78 CTS patients and 78 group-matched healthy control subjects were included. The electrodiagnostic testing was regarded as a reference standard CTS diagnostic method. The tests were conducted separately for the case and control groups; the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of the tests were calculated. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of CTS diagnosis were 7.7%, 100%, 100%, 52% and 53.8% for the scratch collapse test; 91%, 97.4%, 97.3%, 91.6%, and 94.2% for the Tinel’s sign test; 84.6%, 100%,100%, 88.6%, and 93.6% for the Phalen’s test; and 87.2%, 100%, 100%, 88.6%, and 93.6% for the Durkan’s test, respectively. Conclusions: Scratch collapse test has a low sensitivity and accuracy for diagnosing CTS. These results do not support its routine use for the diagnosis of CTS. Level of Evidence: Level III","PeriodicalId":10732,"journal":{"name":"Current Orthopaedic Practice","volume":"34 1","pages":"5 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic capability of the scratch collapse test compared with other clinical diagnostic tests for diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome: a prospective case-control study\",\"authors\":\"Farid Najd Mazhar, Hooman Shariatzadeh, Dan Hosseinzadeh\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/BCO.0000000000001193\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Diagnostic performance of the scratch collapse test for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is not clear. This study evaluated its diagnostic capability for CTS diagnosis in comparison with other widely used clinical CTS tests, including the Tinel’s sign, Phalen’s test, and Durkan’s test. Methods: In a prospective case-control study, 78 CTS patients and 78 group-matched healthy control subjects were included. The electrodiagnostic testing was regarded as a reference standard CTS diagnostic method. The tests were conducted separately for the case and control groups; the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of the tests were calculated. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of CTS diagnosis were 7.7%, 100%, 100%, 52% and 53.8% for the scratch collapse test; 91%, 97.4%, 97.3%, 91.6%, and 94.2% for the Tinel’s sign test; 84.6%, 100%,100%, 88.6%, and 93.6% for the Phalen’s test; and 87.2%, 100%, 100%, 88.6%, and 93.6% for the Durkan’s test, respectively. Conclusions: Scratch collapse test has a low sensitivity and accuracy for diagnosing CTS. These results do not support its routine use for the diagnosis of CTS. Level of Evidence: Level III\",\"PeriodicalId\":10732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Orthopaedic Practice\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"5 - 8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Orthopaedic Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/BCO.0000000000001193\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Orthopaedic Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BCO.0000000000001193","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

背景：抓痕塌陷试验对腕管综合征（CTS）的诊断效果尚不清楚。与其他广泛使用的临床CTS测试（包括Tinel征、Phalen试验和Durkan试验）相比，本研究评估了其对CTS诊断的诊断能力。方法：在一项前瞻性病例对照研究中，包括78名CTS患者和78名匹配的健康对照受试者。电诊断试验被认为是CTS诊断方法的参考标准。分别对病例组和对照组进行测试；计算检测的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值（PPV）、阴性预测值（NPV）和准确性。结果：划痕塌陷试验诊断CTS的敏感性、特异性、PPV、NPV和准确性分别为7.7%、100%、100%、52%和53.8%；Tinel征测试分别为91%、97.4%、97.3%、91.6%和94.2%；Phalen检验分别为84.6%、100%、100%、88.6%和93.6%；杜尔坎试验分别为87.2%、100%、100%、88.6%和93.6%。结论：划痕塌陷试验诊断CTS的敏感性和准确性较低。这些结果不支持其用于CTS诊断的常规用途。证据级别：三级

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Diagnostic capability of the scratch collapse test compared with other clinical diagnostic tests for diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome: a prospective case-control study

Background: Diagnostic performance of the scratch collapse test for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is not clear. This study evaluated its diagnostic capability for CTS diagnosis in comparison with other widely used clinical CTS tests, including the Tinel’s sign, Phalen’s test, and Durkan’s test. Methods: In a prospective case-control study, 78 CTS patients and 78 group-matched healthy control subjects were included. The electrodiagnostic testing was regarded as a reference standard CTS diagnostic method. The tests were conducted separately for the case and control groups; the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of the tests were calculated. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of CTS diagnosis were 7.7%, 100%, 100%, 52% and 53.8% for the scratch collapse test; 91%, 97.4%, 97.3%, 91.6%, and 94.2% for the Tinel’s sign test; 84.6%, 100%,100%, 88.6%, and 93.6% for the Phalen’s test; and 87.2%, 100%, 100%, 88.6%, and 93.6% for the Durkan’s test, respectively. Conclusions: Scratch collapse test has a low sensitivity and accuracy for diagnosing CTS. These results do not support its routine use for the diagnosis of CTS. Level of Evidence: Level III

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Current Orthopaedic Practice ORTHOPEDICS-

CiteScore

0.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量

107

期刊介绍： Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Current Orthopaedic Practice is a peer-reviewed, general orthopaedic journal that translates clinical research into best practices for diagnosing, treating, and managing musculoskeletal disorders. The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical research, invited special focus reviews and general reviews, as well as original articles on innovations in practice, case reports, point/counterpoint, and diagnostic imaging.