OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess agreement between different case definitions of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) for epidemiological studies. METHODS: We performed a literature search for papers suggesting case definitions for use in epidemiological studies of CTS. Using data elements based on symptom questionnaires, hand diagrams, physical examinations, and nerve conduction studies collected from 1107 newly-hired workers, each subject in the study was classified according to each of the case definitions selected from the literature. We compared each case definition to every other case definition, using the Kappa statistic to measure pair-wise agreement on whether each subject met the case definition. RESULTS: We found six unique papers in a 20-year period suggesting a case definition of CTS for use in population-based studies. We extracted seven case definitions. Definitions included different parameters: (i) symptoms only, (ii) symptoms and physical examination, (iii) symptoms and either physical examination or median nerve conduction study, and (iv) symptoms and nerve conduction study. When applied to our study population, the prevalence of CTS using different case definitions ranged from 2.5-11.0%. The percentage of misclassification was between 1-10%, with generally acceptable levels of agreement (kappa values ranged from 0.30-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Different case definitions resulted in widely varying prevalences of CTS. Agreement between case definitions was generally good, particularly between those that required very specific symptoms or the combination of symptoms and physical examination or nerve conduction. The agreement observed between different case definitions suggests that the results can be compared across different research studies of risk factors for CTS.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess agreement between different case definitions of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) for epidemiological studies. METHODS: We performed a literature search for papers suggesting case definitions for use in epidemiological studies of CTS. Using data elements based on symptom questionnaires, hand diagrams, physical examinations, and nerve conduction studies collected from 1107 newly-hired workers, each subject in the study was classified according to each of the case definitions selected from the literature. We compared each case definition to every other case definition, using the Kappa statistic to measure pair-wise agreement on whether each subject met the case definition. RESULTS: We found six unique papers in a 20-year period suggesting a case definition of CTS for use in population-based studies. We extracted seven case definitions. Definitions included different parameters: (i) symptoms only, (ii) symptoms and physical examination, (iii) symptoms and either physical examination or median nerve conduction study, and (iv) symptoms and nerve conduction study. When applied to our study population, the prevalence of CTS using different case definitions ranged from 2.5-11.0%. The percentage of misclassification was between 1-10%, with generally acceptable levels of agreement (kappa values ranged from 0.30-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Different case definitions resulted in widely varying prevalences of CTS. Agreement between case definitions was generally good, particularly between those that required very specific symptoms or the combination of symptoms and physical examination or nerve conduction. The agreement observed between different case definitions suggests that the results can be compared across different research studies of risk factors for CTS.
Authors: Robert S Wainner; Julie M Fritz; James J Irrgang; Anthony Delitto; Stephen Allison; Michael L Boninger Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: David K Bonauto; Barbara A Silverstein; Z Joyce Fan; Caroline K Smith; Dana N Wilcox Journal: Occup Med (Lond) Date: 2008-09-16 Impact factor: 1.611
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: Sara E Luckhaupt; James M Dahlhamer; Brian W Ward; Marie H Sweeney; John P Sestito; Geoffrey M Calvert Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Ann Marie Dale; Carisa Harris-Adamson; David Rempel; Fred Gerr; Kurt Hegmann; Barbara Silverstein; Susan Burt; Arun Garg; Jay Kapellusch; Linda Merlino; Matthew S Thiese; Ellen A Eisen; Bradley Evanoff Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Z Joyce Fan; Carisa Harris-Adamson; Fred Gerr; Ellen A Eisen; Kurt T Hegmann; Stephen Bao; Barbara Silverstein; Bradley Evanoff; Ann Marie Dale; Matthew S Thiese; Arun Garg; Jay Kapellusch; Susan Burt; Linda Merlino; David Rempel Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2015-03-16 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Z Mediouni; J Bodin; A M Dale; E Herquelot; M Carton; A Leclerc; N Fouquet; C Dumontier; Y Roquelaure; B A Evanoff; A Descatha Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Matthew S Thiese; Fred Gerr; Kurt T Hegmann; Carisa Harris-Adamson; Ann Marie Dale; Bradley Evanoff; Ellen A Eisen; Jay Kapellusch; Arun Garg; Susan Burt; Stephen Bao; Barbara Silverstein; Linda Merlino; David Rempel Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Georgia Ntani; Keith T Palmer; Cathy Linaker; E Clare Harris; Richard Van der Star; Cyrus Cooper; David Coggon Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 2.362