Impact of technical variations on the ring-finger test for carpal tunnel syndrome.
CTS, carpal tunnel syndrome
EMG, electromyography
HAVS, hand arm vibration syndrome
Median-ulnar nerves comparison tests
NCS, nerve conduction study
Nerve conduction study
Ring finger test
Journal
Clinical neurophysiology practice
ISSN: 2467-981X
Titre abrégé: Clin Neurophysiol Pract
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101684308
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
04
02
2019
revised:
19
11
2019
accepted:
23
11
2019
entrez:
8
1
2020
pubmed:
8
1
2020
medline:
8
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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). The two methods have a poor to moderate agreement as indicated by the range of the limits of agreement (0.5 ms). 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31909307
doi: 10.1016/j.cnp.2019.11.005
pii: S2467-981X(19)30046-0
pmc: PMC6940656
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
23-29Informations de copyright
© 2019 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Muscle Nerve. 1998 Aug;21(8):999-1005
pubmed: 9655117
Muscle Nerve. 1989 Sep;12(9):735-41
pubmed: 2641997
Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 May;117(5):964-71
pubmed: 16516550
Acta Neurol Taiwan. 2013 Dec;22(4):152-7
pubmed: 24458852
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015 Sep 01;16:231
pubmed: 26323649
Clin Neurophysiol. 2013 Aug;124(8):1680-8
pubmed: 23507585
Theriogenology. 2010 Jun;73(9):1167-79
pubmed: 20138353
Muscle Nerve. 1994 Dec;17(12):1469-71
pubmed: 7969250
J Occup Environ Med. 2008 Dec;50(12):1355-64
pubmed: 19092490
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2004 Dec;107(1):64-9
pubmed: 15567555
BMJ. 2007 Aug 18;335(7615):343-6
pubmed: 17703044
Muscle Nerve. 2011 Oct;44(4):597-607
pubmed: 21922474
Neurosurgery. 2012 Mar;70(3):610-6
pubmed: 21869718
Acta Neurol Scand. 1997 Oct;96(4):211-7
pubmed: 9325471
Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2002 Dec;60(4):923-7
pubmed: 12563381
Ital J Neurol Sci. 1998 Dec;19(6):387-90
pubmed: 10935836
Joint Bone Spine. 2008 Jul;75(4):451-7
pubmed: 18455945
Muscle Nerve. 2014 Mar;49(3):337-44
pubmed: 23716377
Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2015 Aug;26(3):523-37
pubmed: 26231963
Neurology. 2003 Feb 11;60(3):458-64
pubmed: 12578927
Muscle Nerve. 1988 May;11(5):511-8
pubmed: 3374521
J Clin Neurophysiol. 2005 Jun;22(3):216-21
pubmed: 15933495
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012 Feb;51(2):250-61
pubmed: 21586523
Muscle Nerve. 2001 Sep;24(9):1134-41
pubmed: 11494265