4.6 Article

Prevalence and predictive factors for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome by electrodiagnosis: A retrospective study

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 16, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260578

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The prevalence of bilateral CTS was 80.7%, with adequate diagnostic accuracy predicted by bilateral symptoms, age >= 45 years, and thenar muscle weakness.
Introduction Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common compressive neuropathy. Patients who have unilateral symptoms are frequently found to have bilateral CTS by electrodiagnostic (EDx) study. We aimed to (a) study the prevalence and identify the predictive factors for bilateral CTS diagnosed by EDx; and (b) develop a model to predict bilateral CTS. Methods The retrospective clinical and EDx data of patients with CTS were collected and analyzed using the Chi-squared test and multiple logistic regression analysis. A model was fitted, and the best cutoff point determined. Calibration and discrimination performance of the model were performed. Results A total of 327 patients with a mean age of 50.0 years were enrolled. Most were women (82.6%), and the most common presenting symptom was hand numbness (93.6%). The median duration of symptoms was 60 days. The prevalence of bilateral CTS was 80.7%. In the multivariate analysis, the predictive factors for bilateral CTS were the presence of bilateral symptoms (AOR 6.7 [95%CI 3.1-14.3]), thenar muscle weakness (AOR 3.9 [95%CI 1.3-11.6]), and age >= 45 years (AOR 2.5 [95%CI 1.3-4.6]). The logistic regression model was fitted, and the best cutoff point determined. The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) was 0.76. The respective optimism-corrected C index and Somers' D was 0.762 and 0.524. Conclusion The prevalence of bilateral CTS was 80.7%. Our findings suggest bilateral CTS was predicted with adequate diagnostic accuracy by bilateral symptoms, age >= 45 years, and thenar muscle weakness.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available