↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Value of F-wave studies on the electrodiagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Value of F-wave studies on the electrodiagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s45331
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alemdar

Abstract

F waves are late electrophysiological responses to antidromic activation of motor neurons and are used to evaluate the conduction along the whole length of peripheral nerves. We aimed to determine the diagnostic efficacies of minimum median nerve F-wave latency (FWL) and median-to-ulnar nerve F-wave latency difference (FWLD) on carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The electrophysiological studies consisted of sensory and motor nerve conduction and F-wave studies of the median and ulnar nerves. The best cut-off points of minimum median nerve FWL and FWLD for the diagnosis of CTS were detected for the whole study group and for different height subgroups (Group 1: 150-159 cm, Group 2: 160-169 cm, and Group 3: over 170 cm). The diagnostic efficacies of minimum median nerve FWL and FWLD were calculated for the whole CTS group and for the mild CTS group, separately. The best cut-off point of minimum median nerve FWL on the diagnosis of CTS was determined as 24.60 ms for the whole group. It was 23.90 ms for Group 1, 24.80 ms for Group 2, and 28.40 ms for Group 3. The usage of these stratified cut-off points yielded a higher total diagnostic efficacy rate than single cut-off point usage (79.9% vs 69%, respectively; P=0.02). The best cut-off point of FWLD on the diagnosis of CTS was 0.80 ms for the whole group. It was 0.55 ms for Group 1, 0.30 ms for Group 2, and 0.85 ms for Group 3. Both the single cutoff point usage and the stratified chart usage for FWLD had equal diagnostic efficacy (85.1%). In the mild CTS group, diagnostic efficacy was 55.5% for minimum median nerve FWL and 78.8% for FWLD (P=0.0001). Median-to-ulnar nerve FWLD yields a higher diagnostic efficacy than minimum median nerve FWL on the diagnosis of CTS. However, the sensitivities of both parameters are not satisfactory for the extremities with mild CTS, which compose the main group having diagnostic challenge.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 2 15%
Other 2 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Other 4 31%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 46%
Social Sciences 2 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 1 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,236,953
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,471
of 2,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,021
of 264,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#51
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,986 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 264,262 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.