Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 318

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Sensitivity and Specificity of Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Meta-analysis

Open access
Fowler, John R., Gaughan, John P., Ilyas, Asif M.·2011·Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most commonly diagnosed compression neuropathy of the upper extremity. Current AAOS recommendations are to obtain a confirmatory electrodiagnostic test in patients for whom surgery is being considered. Ultrasound has emerged as an alternative confirmatory test for CTS; however, its potential role is limited by lack of adequate data for sensitivity and specificity relative to electrodiagnostic testing. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this meta-analysis we determined the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in the diagnosis of CTS. METHODS: A PubMed/MEDLINE search identified 323 articles for review. After applying exclusion criteria, 19 articles with a total sample size of 3131 wrists were included for meta-analysis. Three groups were created: a composite of all studies, studies using clinical diagnosis as the reference standard, and studies using electrodiagnostic testing as the reference standard. RESULTS: The composite sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound for the diagnosis of CTS, using all studies, were 77.6% (95% CI 71.6-83.6%) and 86.8% (95% CI 78.9-94.8%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The wide variations of sensitivities and specificities reported in the literature have prevented meaningful analysis of ultrasound as either a screening or confirmatory tool in the diagnosis of CTS. The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in the diagnosis of CTS are 77.6% and 86.8%, respectively. Although ultrasound may not replace electrodiagnostic testing as the most sensitive and specific test for the diagnosis of CTS given the values reported in this meta-analysis, it may be a feasible alternative to electrodiagnostic testing as the first-line confirmatory test. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level III studies. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11999-010-1637-5

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Cited by

See all 318

Metadata

Authors
Fowler, J. R., Gaughan, J. P., & Ilyas, A. M.
Venue
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
Published
2011-04
Volume
469
Issue
4
Pages
1089-1094
ISSN
0009-921X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1996876964
Cited by
318
References
14
FWCI
7.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Sensitivity and Specificity of Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11999-010-1637-5
The paper
Fowler, J. R., Gaughan, J. P., & Ilyas, A. M. (2011). The Sensitivity and Specificity of Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Meta-analysis. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1637-5

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.