Diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome with ultrasound: should we go more distal?
Authors' conclusion
Adding the ultradistal level improves the performance of US for diagnosing CTS.
Study context
- Population
- Patients clinically diagnosed with primary carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and healthy controls219 patients and 39 controls
- Comparison
- Ultrasound (US) definitions of CTS vs clinical diagnosis
- Outcome
- Performance of US definitions of CTS (MN-CSA) vs clinical diagnosis
Methodological detailscase-control
- Case-control
Performance
As reported in the abstract
Diagnostic performance vs clinical diagnosis (right hand)
| Test or model | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|
| Definition 3 | 98% | 95% |
| Definition 3 without ultradistal level | 90% | — not stated in the abstract |
Sensitivity
Definition 398%
Definition 3 without ultradistal level90%
Specificity
Definition 395%
Definition 3 without ultradistal level— not stated in the abstract
— not stated in the abstract
Further findings
| Outcome | Patients | Controls | Difference (mm²) |
|---|---|---|---|
| MN-CSA, range across levelsMaximal at ultradistal level, right | 10.5-16.8 mm² | 6.2-7.6 mm² | 10.1 |
| MN-CSA, range across levelsMaximal at ultradistal level, left | 8.3 |
Cross-sectional area (CSA) cut-offs (proximal, distal, ultradistal)
- Right
- 11 mm², 9 mm² and 10 mm²
- Left
- 10 mm², 8 mm² and 10 mm²
Original publication
Diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome with ultrasound: should we go more distal? RMD Open. Published 28 May 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →