A Descatha1, A-M Dale, A Franzblau, J Coomes, B Evanoff. 1. Occupational Health Department, Poincaré Teaching Hospital AP-HP, University of Versailles-Saint Quentin, INSERM, U687, Garches, France. alexis.descatha@rpc.aphp.fr
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the utility of physical examination manoeuvres in the prediction of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) in a population-based research study. METHODS: We studied a cohort of 1108 newly employed workers in several industries. Each worker completed a symptom questionnaire, a structured physical examination and nerve conduction study. For each hand, our CTS case definition required both median nerve conduction abnormality and symptoms classified as "classic" or "probable" on a hand diagram. We calculated the positive predictive values and likelihood ratios for physical examination manoeuvres in subjects with and without symptoms. RESULTS: The prevalence of CTS in our cohort was 1.2% for the right hand and 1.0% for the left hand. The likelihood ratios of a positive test for physical provocative tests ranged from 2.0 to 3.3, and those of a negative test from 0.3 to 0.9. The post-test probability of positive testing was <50% for all strategies tested. CONCLUSION: Our study found that physical examination, alone or in combination with symptoms, was not predictive of CTS in a working population. We suggest using specific symptoms as a first-level screening tool, and nerve conduction study as a confirmatory test, as a case definition strategy in research settings.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the utility of physical examination manoeuvres in the prediction of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) in a population-based research study. METHODS: We studied a cohort of 1108 newly employed workers in several industries. Each worker completed a symptom questionnaire, a structured physical examination and nerve conduction study. For each hand, our CTS case definition required both median nerve conduction abnormality and symptoms classified as "classic" or "probable" on a hand diagram. We calculated the positive predictive values and likelihood ratios for physical examination manoeuvres in subjects with and without symptoms. RESULTS: The prevalence of CTS in our cohort was 1.2% for the right hand and 1.0% for the left hand. The likelihood ratios of a positive test for physical provocative tests ranged from 2.0 to 3.3, and those of a negative test from 0.3 to 0.9. The post-test probability of positive testing was <50% for all strategies tested. CONCLUSION: Our study found that physical examination, alone or in combination with symptoms, was not predictive of CTS in a working population. We suggest using specific symptoms as a first-level screening tool, and nerve conduction study as a confirmatory test, as a case definition strategy in research settings.
Authors: M M Homan; A Franzblau; R A Werner; J W Albers; T J Armstrong; M B Bromberg Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Mark G Boocock; Jill M K Collier; Peter J McNair; Marian Simmonds; Peter J Larmer; Bridget Armstrong Journal: Semin Arthritis Rheum Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: D Rempel; B Evanoff; P C Amadio; M de Krom; G Franklin; A Franzblau; R Gray; F Gerr; M Hagberg; T Hales; J N Katz; G Pransky Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Theodore N Armstrong; Ann M Dale; Muhammad T Al-Lozi; Alfred Franzblau; Bradley A Evanoff Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Andrea S Klauser; Mohamed M H Abd Ellah; Ethan J Halpern; Christian Siedentopf; Thomas Auer; Gernot Eberle; Rosa Bellmann-Weiler; Christian Kremser; Martin Sojer; Wolfgang N Löscher; Markus F Gabl; Gudrun M Feuchtner; Werner R Jaschke Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-04-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Linda S Chesterton; Krysia S Dziedzic; Danielle A van der Windt; Graham Davenport; Helen L Myers; Trishna Rathod; Milica Blagojevic-Bucknall; Sue M Jowet; Claire Burton; Edward Roddy; Elaine M Hay Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 2.362