Research reporting in cubital tunnel syndrome studies: an analysis of the literature

• Published in: Acta neurochirurgica 2022-05, Vol.164 (5), p.1337-1345
• Main Authors: Hug, Nicholas F., Smith, Brandon W., Sakamuri, Sarada, Jensen, Michael, Purger, David A., Spinner, Robert J., Wilson, Thomas J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Classification; Clinical trials; Cubital Tunnel Syndrome - diagnosis; Cubital Tunnel Syndrome - surgery; Decompression, Surgical - methods; Elbow; Humans; Interventional Radiology; Literature reviews; Medical Subject Headings-MeSH; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Minimally Invasive Surgery; Nervous system; Neurology; Neuroradiology; Neurosurgery; Original Article - Peripheral Nerves; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pain; Pain - surgery; Peripheral Nerves; Questionnaires; Subject heading schemes; Surgical Orthopedics; Ulnar Nerve - surgery
• ISSN: 0942-0940; 0001-6268; 0942-0940
• DOI: 10.1007/s00701-021-05102-9

Purpose There is a strong need for a set of consensus outcomes to be utilized for future studies on cubital tunnel syndrome. The goal was to assess the outcome measures utilized in the cubital tunnel syndrome literature as a way of measuring popularity/acceptability and then to perform a literature review for the most commonly used outcomes. Methods A literature search was performed using the pubmed.gov database and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). For each article, the following data were abstracted: study type, motor outcome(s), sensory outcome(s), composite outcome(s), patient-reported outcome (PRO) metric(s), pain outcome(s), psychological outcome(s), electrodiagnostic outcome(s), and any other outcomes that were used. Results A composite outcome was reported in 52/85 (61%) studies, with the modified Bishop score (27/85; 32%) most common. A motor outcome was reported in 44/85 (52%) studies, with dynamometry (38/85; 45%) most common. The majority of studies (55%) did not report a sensory outcome. The majority of studies (52%) did not report a PRO. A specific pain outcome was reported in the minority (23/85; 27%), with the visual analogue scale (VAS) (22/85; 26%) most common. Pre- and postoperative electrodiagnostic results were presented in 22/85 studies (26%). Discussion Understanding current clinical practice and historical outcomes reporting provides a foundation for discussion regarding the development of a core outcome set for cubital tunnel syndrome. We hope that the data provided in the current study will stoke a discussion that will culminate in a consensus statement for research reporting in cubital tunnel syndrome studies.