2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.04.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reporting Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Cubital Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
21
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 114 publications
1
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The primary limitation of this study is the small number of patients with DM, which raises the possibility of skewed data, and precludes more sophisticated statistical analysis of predictors of function following surgery. It should be noted, however, that the overall sample size compares favourably with the majority of previous reports (Gallo et al., 2020), and that our study is strengthened by a high follow-up rate with a comparatively long follow-up period (Burahee et al., 2022), although a recent study has suggested that loss to follow-up may not necessarily affect the outcomes of studies using PROMs (Stirling et al., 2022a). A further limitation is the absence of data relating to glycaemic control, although this limitation is shared with multiple previous studies investigating the effect of DM on other conditions affecting the hand (Eckerdal et al., 2014; Jenkins et al., 2012; Stirling et al., 2020).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 63%
“…The primary limitation of this study is the small number of patients with DM, which raises the possibility of skewed data, and precludes more sophisticated statistical analysis of predictors of function following surgery. It should be noted, however, that the overall sample size compares favourably with the majority of previous reports (Gallo et al., 2020), and that our study is strengthened by a high follow-up rate with a comparatively long follow-up period (Burahee et al., 2022), although a recent study has suggested that loss to follow-up may not necessarily affect the outcomes of studies using PROMs (Stirling et al., 2022a). A further limitation is the absence of data relating to glycaemic control, although this limitation is shared with multiple previous studies investigating the effect of DM on other conditions affecting the hand (Eckerdal et al., 2014; Jenkins et al., 2012; Stirling et al., 2020).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 63%
“…Different outcome measurements were used at varying time points in the included studies. The same issue has been described for primary cubital tunnel syndrome (Gallo et al., 2020). As a result, there were insufficient data for a meta-analysis.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 59%
“…A review of reported outcome measures following CuTS identified 101 studies which used 45 unique outcomes and 31 postoperative outcome measures. 22 The Patient-Rated Ulna Nerve Evaluation (PRUNE) score was the only validated diagnosis-specific tool, but was only reported in 3% of included studies. This results in meta-analysis being of limited benefit due to the heterogeneity of reported data.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%