The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Ultrasonography versus nerve conduction study in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome: substantive or complementary tests?
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to assess the optimal discriminatory sonographic criteria and relevant threshold values in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and to evaluate quantitative ultrasonography (US) as a tool for diagnosis and treatment of patients suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome in comparison with electrophysiological study. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients with CTS and 78 asymptomatic controls were assessed and underwent ultrasonography of the wrists. All patients and controls completed a self-administered questionnaire. Electrophysiological testing was done for all patients and control subjects. Data from the patient and the control groups were compared to determine the diagnostic relations in patients with CTS and the grade of severity. RESULTS: There was a high degree of correlation between the conduction abnormalities of the median nerve as detected by electrodiagnostic tests, self-administered assessment and the measurement of the cross-sectional area of the nerve by US (P<0.05). Various levels of disease severity could also be illustrated by US, giving confident results for diagnosis, treatment planning and following the patients with CTS. In 16 patients (17%) tenosynovitis/localized swelling in the tendons in the carpal tunnel was the primary cause of CTS. A cut-off point of 10 mm(2) for the mean cross-sectional area of the median nerve was found to be the upper limit for normal values. Based on the results of this study, an algorithm for evaluation and management of CTS has been suggested. CONCLUSION: High-frequency US examination of the median nerve and measurement of its cross-sectional area should be strongly considered as a new alternative diagnostic modality for the evaluation of CTS. In addition to being of high diagnostic accuracy it is able to define the cause of nerve compression and aids treatment planning; US also provides a reliable method for following the response to therapy.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Fowler, J. R., Gaughan, J. P., & Ilyas, A. M. (2011) · Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research · doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1637-5 · Cited by 318
Quantification of human upper extremity nerves and fascicular anatomy
Brill, N. A., & Tyler, D. J. (2017) · Muscle & Nerve · doi:10.1002/mus.25534 · Cited by 64
Metadata
- Authors
- El Miedany, Y. M.
- Venue
- Rheumatology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-05-04
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 887-895
- ISSN
- 0263-7103 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2172
- OpenAlex
- W2122461220
- Cited by
- 268
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Ultrasonography versus nerve conduction study in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome: substantive or complementary tests? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/rheumatology/keh190
- The paper
- El Miedany, Y. M. (2004). Ultrasonography versus nerve conduction study in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome: substantive or complementary tests? Rheumatology. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keh190
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.
