IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1991812189-193_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validation of a surveillance case definition of carpal tunnel syndrome

Author

Listed:
  • Katz, J.N.
  • Larson, M.G.
  • Fossel, A.H.
  • Liang, M.H.

Abstract

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has proposed a surveillance case definition for work-related carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The case definition requires the presence of median nerve symptoms; one or more occupational risk factors; and objective evidence of CTS including one of three physical examination findings or nerve conduction tests diagnostic of CTS. We evaluated the performance of the NIOSH case definition, restricting our analysis to cases in which physical examination findings served as the objective criterion. Nerve conduction studies were used as the gold standard. Seventy-eight workers were studied; 38 percent had CTS. The NIOSH case definition had sensitivity of 0.67 (95% CI = 0.57, 0.77), specificity of 0.58 (95% CI = 0.47, 0.69), and positive and negative predictive values of 0.50 (95% CI = 0.39, 0.61) and 0.74 (95% CI = 0.64, 0.84), respectively. Overall 38 percent of subjects were classified incorrectly. In a sample with a prevalence of 15 percent, as might be encountered in high risk workplaces, the positive predictive value would be 0.22. In conclusion, when physical examination findings serve as the objective criterion the performance of the case definition is modest reflecting the limited diagnostic value of its component tests and indicating that effective screening for CTS awaits improved diagnostic techniques.

Suggested Citation

  • Katz, J.N. & Larson, M.G. & Fossel, A.H. & Liang, M.H., 1991. "Validation of a surveillance case definition of carpal tunnel syndrome," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 81(2), pages 189-193.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1991:81:2:189-193_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1991:81:2:189-193_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.