Effects of varying case definition on carpal tunnel syndrome prevalence estimates in a pooled cohort

41Citations
Citations of this article
82Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: To analyze differences in carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) prevalence using a combination of electrodiagnostic studies (EDSs) and symptoms using EDS criteria varied across a range of cutpoints and compared with symptoms in both ≥1 and ≥2 median nerveeserved digits. Design: Pooled data from 5 prospective cohorts. Setting: Hand-intensive industrial settings, including manufacturing, assembly, production, service, construction, and health care. Participants: Employed, working-age participants who are able to provide consent and undergo EDS testing (N=3130). Interventions: None. Main Outcome Measures: CTS prevalence was estimated while varying the thresholds for median sensory latency, median motor latency, and transcarpal delta latency difference. EDS criteria examined included the following: median sensory latency of 3.3 to 4.1 milliseconds, median motor latency of 4.1 to 4.9 milliseconds, and median-ulnar sensory difference of 0.4 to 1.2 milliseconds. EDS criteria were combined with symptoms in ≥1 or ≥2 median nerve-served digits. EDS criteria from other published studies were applied to allow for comparison. Results: CTS prevalence ranged from 6.3% to 11.7%. CTS prevalence estimates changed most per millisecond of sensory latency compared with motor latency or transcarpal delta. CTS prevalence decreased by 0.9% to 2.0% if the criteria required symptoms in 2 digits instead of 1. Conclusions: There are meaningful differences in CTS prevalence when different EDS criteria are applied. The digital sensory latency criteria result in the largest variance in prevalence.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Thiese, M. S., Gerr, F., Hegmann, K. T., Harris-Adamson, C., Dale, A. M., Evanoff, B., … Rempel, D. (2014). Effects of varying case definition on carpal tunnel syndrome prevalence estimates in a pooled cohort. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 95(12), 2320–2326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.08.004

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free