Accuracy of the Most Common Provocation Tests for Diagnosing Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis
Sergio Núñez de Arenas‐Arroyo, Iván Cavero‐Redondo, Ana Torres‐Costoso, Sara Reina‐Gutiérrez, María José Guzmán‐Pavón, Vicente Martínez‐Vizcaíno
Abstract
Objective To estimate the screening performances of the most important provocation tests for diagnosing carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Design Diagnostic test accuracy systematic review with meta-analysis. Literature Search We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from inception to November 2020. Study Selection Criteria Observational studies comparing the accuracies of the Durkan test (DT), the hand elevation test (HET), the Phalen test (PT), the Tinel test (TT), and the upper-limb neurodynamic test specific to the median nerve (ULNT1) with electrodiagnosis for screening for CTS. Data Synthesis Random-effects models for the diagnostic odds ratio (dOR) values computed by Moses' constant for a linear model and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to calculate the accuracy of these tests. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were used to summarize the overall test performance. Results Thirty-seven studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a total sample of 2662 wrists for DT, 864 wrists for HET, 6361 wrists for PT, 6094 wrists for TT, and 571 wrists for ULNT1. The pooled dORs for screening for CTS were 15.84 (95% CI: 3.78, 66.38) for DT, 128.63 (95% CI: 40.64, 407.12) for HET, 7.23 (95% CI: 4.06, 12.86) for PT, 5.31 (95% CI: 3.49, 8.09) for TT, and 1.78 (95% CI: 0.61, 5.19) for ULNT1. Conclusion HET has the best clinical performance for detecting CTS and should be considered the first screening test of choice during the physical examination. The most common tests (DT, PT, and TT) have good accuracies for screening for CTS. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(8):522–531. Epub: 19 June 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10828