↓ Skip to main content

Endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release for idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release for idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13018-014-0148-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dongqing Zuo, Zifei Zhou, Hongsheng Wang, Yuxin Liao, Longpo Zheng, Yingqi Hua, Zhengdong Cai

Abstract

The objective of this study is to do a meta-analysis of the literature and compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) and open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) for idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). A comprehensive literature search of the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register was undertaken for randomized studies reporting carpal tunnel syndrome treated with ECTR or OCTR. The quality of randomized trials was critically assessed. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for safety and efficacy outcome variables were calculated by fixed-effect or random-effect methods with RevMan v.5.1 provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. A total of 13 randomized trials were included by total retrieve and riddling. The results of our meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the overall complication rate (RR¿=¿1.34, 95% CI [0.74, 2.43], P¿=¿0.34), subjective satisfaction (RR¿=¿1.0, 95% CI [0.93, 1.08], P¿=¿0.92), time to return to work (mean difference¿=¿¿3.52 [¿8.15, 1.10], P¿=¿0.14), hand grip and pinch strength, and the operative time (mean difference¿=¿¿1.89, 95% CI [¿5.84, 2.06]) between patients in the ECTR and OCTR groups (P¿=¿0.16, 0.70, and 0.35, respectively). The rate of hand pain (RR¿=¿0.73, 95% CI [0.53, 0.93], P¿=¿0.02) in the ECTR group was significantly lower than that in the OCTR group. ECTR treatment seemed to cause more reversible postoperative nerve injuries as compared with OCTR (RR¿=¿2.38, 95% CI [0.98, 5.77], P¿=¿0.05). Although ECTR significantly reduced postoperative hand pain, it increased the possibility of reversible postoperative nerve injury in patients with idiopathic CTS. No statistical difference in the overall complication rate, subjective satisfaction, the time to return to work, postoperative grip and pinch strength, and operative time was observed between the two groups of patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 107 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Student > Master 12 11%
Other 11 10%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 27 25%
Unknown 27 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 28 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 January 2015.
All research outputs
#18,968,282
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#1,002
of 1,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#260,696
of 356,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,454 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 356,311 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.