4.5 Article

Personal factors associated with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS): a case-control study

期刊

BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-04941-y

关键词

Carpal tunnel syndrome; CTS; Median nerve; Sociodemographic factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Household chores were significantly associated with CTS, while physical exercise was associated with decreased odds of CTS.
Background Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is one of the most common nerve entrapments in the upper limb. In Saudi Arabia, few studies have investigated CTS in the general population. This study aimed to determine the association between personal factors and CTS. Methods A case-control study involved adults aged 18 and above. Cases were recruited from electrophysiology lab records as consecutive case series, while controls were individuals who were free of CTS symptoms according to the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ). The electronic medical records of participants were reviewed to obtain age, height, weight, medical conditions, and mobile numbers. Cases and controls were contacted via phone to complete a questionnaire that was designed based on previous literature. We used multivariate binary logistic regression to identify the personal factors significantly associated with CTS. Results A total of 95 cases and 190 controls were included. Most of the participants were female (84.2%) and Saudi (93%). Most of cases were above 45 years of age (73.7%), while 84.7% were 45 year - old or younger among the control group. Stratified logistic regression showed that performance of household chores was significantly associated with CTS. While physical exercise associated with decreased odds of CTS. Conclusions This study adds to the body of evidence on personal factors associated with CTS. However, the degree of differences in the age structure of the cases compared with the controls suggest that there is a considerable potential for residual confounding affecting the results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据