Huynh Minh N Q, Karir Aneesh, Bennett Alexandria
Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018 Sep 14;6(9):e1933. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001933. eCollection 2018 Sep.
Despite the fact that carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common entrapment neuropathy, the diagnostic accuracy of clinical screening examinations for CTS is controversial. The scratch collapse test (SCT) is a novel test that may be of diagnostic advantage. The purpose of our study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the SCT for CTS.
A literature search was performed using PubMed (1966 to April 2018); Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to April 2018); EMBASE (1988 to April 2018); and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, to April 2018). We examined the studies for the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios of the SCT. This review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018077115).
The literature search generated 13 unique articles. Seven articles were included for full text screening and 3 articles met our inclusion criteria, all of which were level II evidence with low risk of bias (165 patients). Pooled sensitivities, specificities, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratios were 0.32 [95% CI (0.24-0.41)], 0.62 [95% CI (0.45-0.78)], 0.75 [95% CI (0.33-1.67)], and 1.03 [95% CI (0.61-1.74)], respectively. The calculated area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (AUSROC) curve was 0.25, indicating a low diagnostic accuracy.
The SCT has poor sensitivity; however, it is moderately specific. Based on the current literature and their variable quality of the evidence, we conclude that the SCT is not an adequate screening test for detecting CTS.
尽管腕管综合征(CTS)是最常见的卡压性神经病,但临床筛查检查对CTS的诊断准确性仍存在争议。划痕塌陷试验(SCT)是一种可能具有诊断优势的新型试验。我们研究的目的是确定SCT对CTS的诊断准确性。
使用PubMed(1966年至2018年4月)、Ovid MEDLINE(1966年至2018年4月)、EMBASE(1988年至2018年4月)和Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(Cochrane图书馆,至2018年4月)进行文献检索。我们检查了这些研究中SCT的合并敏感性、特异性和似然比。本综述已在PROSPERO(CRD420180771)注册。
文献检索共得到13篇独特的文章。7篇文章纳入全文筛选,3篇文章符合我们的纳入标准,均为II级证据,偏倚风险低(165例患者)。合并敏感性、特异性分别为0.32 [95%可信区间(CI)(0.24 - 0.41)]、0.62 [95%CI(0.45 - 0.78)],阳性似然比为0.75 [95%CI(0.33 - 1.67)],阴性似然比为1.03 [95%CI(0.61 - 1.74)]。计算得到的汇总受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUSROC)为0.25,表明诊断准确性较低。
SCT敏感性较差;然而,它具有中等特异性。基于当前文献及其证据质量的差异,我们得出结论,SCT不是检测CTS的充分筛查试验。