Richard H Gelberman1, Sean Boone1, Daniel A Osei1, Steven Cherney1, Ryan P Calfee2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. Electronic address: calfeer@wudosis.wustl.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic performance (ie, sensitivity, specificity, interrater reliability) of the thumb metacarpal adduction and extension tests against traditional examination maneuvers for trapeziometacarpal (TMC) arthritis. METHODS: This cross-sectional study recruited 129 patients from 2 outpatient offices at a tertiary institution. All patients had radiographic wrist examinations and completed a standardized physical examination consisting of the thumb adduction and extension tests as well as standard examination maneuvers for radial wrist and thumb pain. The physical examinations were performed by 1 of 2 attending physicians and an independent examiner. Patients were recruited for 3 diagnostic groups: TMC arthritis, radial wrist or hand pain, and nonradial wrist pain controls. Statistical analysis calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and interrater reliability of each physical examination maneuver for detecting TMC arthritis. RESULTS: The thumb adduction maneuver was found to have a sensitivity of 0.94 (confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.98) and a specificity of 0.93 (CI, 0.86-0.97). The thumb extension maneuver had a sensitivity of 0.94 (CI, 0.82-0.98) and a specificity of 0.95 (CI, 0.87-0.98). The interrater reliability was excellent for both the adduction (κ = 0.79) and the extension tests (κ = 0.84). The grind test had a sensitivity of 0.44 (CI, 0.30-0.59), a specificity of 0.92 (CI, 0.84-0.97), and poor interrater reliability (0.31). Point tenderness at the TMC joint had a sensitivity of 0.94 (CI, 0.82-0.98), a specificity of 0.81 (CI, 0.71-0.88) and fair interrater reliability (κ = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: The adduction and extension tests each proved to be more sensitive than the grind test for the detection of TMC arthritis. Further, these provocative tests were more specific for basal joint arthrosis than was the elicitation of point tenderness at the joint. The metacarpal adduction and extension maneuvers demonstrated excellent utility as screening tests for the identification of TMC arthritis. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic II.
PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic performance (ie, sensitivity, specificity, interrater reliability) of the thumb metacarpal adduction and extension tests against traditional examination maneuvers for trapeziometacarpal (TMC) arthritis. METHODS: This cross-sectional study recruited 129 patients from 2 outpatient offices at a tertiary institution. All patients had radiographic wrist examinations and completed a standardized physical examination consisting of the thumb adduction and extension tests as well as standard examination maneuvers for radial wrist and thumb pain. The physical examinations were performed by 1 of 2 attending physicians and an independent examiner. Patients were recruited for 3 diagnostic groups: TMC arthritis, radial wrist or hand pain, and nonradial wrist pain controls. Statistical analysis calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and interrater reliability of each physical examination maneuver for detecting TMC arthritis. RESULTS: The thumb adduction maneuver was found to have a sensitivity of 0.94 (confidence interval [CI], 0.82-0.98) and a specificity of 0.93 (CI, 0.86-0.97). The thumb extension maneuver had a sensitivity of 0.94 (CI, 0.82-0.98) and a specificity of 0.95 (CI, 0.87-0.98). The interrater reliability was excellent for both the adduction (κ = 0.79) and the extension tests (κ = 0.84). The grind test had a sensitivity of 0.44 (CI, 0.30-0.59), a specificity of 0.92 (CI, 0.84-0.97), and poor interrater reliability (0.31). Point tenderness at the TMC joint had a sensitivity of 0.94 (CI, 0.82-0.98), a specificity of 0.81 (CI, 0.71-0.88) and fair interrater reliability (κ = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: The adduction and extension tests each proved to be more sensitive than the grind test for the detection of TMC arthritis. Further, these provocative tests were more specific for basal joint arthrosis than was the elicitation of point tenderness at the joint. The metacarpal adduction and extension maneuvers demonstrated excellent utility as screening tests for the identification of TMC arthritis. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic II.
Authors: Denise M J Arnold; Rachel Gottlieb; Suzanne C Wilkens; Rohit Garg; Adam Nazzal; Neal C Chen; Sang-Gil Lee Journal: Hand (N Y) Date: 2020-08-26
Authors: Jo Adams; Paula Barratt; Nigel K Arden; Sofia Barbosa Bouças; Sarah Bradley; Michael Doherty; Susan Dutton; Krysia Dziedzic; Rachael Gooberman-Hill; Kelly Hislop Lennie; Corinne Hutt Greenyer; Victoria Jansen; Ramon Luengo-Fernandez; Claire Meagher; Peter White; Mark Williams Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 2.692