Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Severity Scoring Systems for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and Outcome Tools

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and Related Median Neuropathies

  • 2309 Accesses

Abstract

Although severe symptoms and deteriorating function of the affected hand are the main reasons patients seek treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), much variability exists in assessing CTS symptoms. Today, there is no reference standard to determine the severity and thus the optimal treatment option for CTS. Traditional means of measuring the impairment of the median nerve lack qualities necessary to evaluate outcome measures that are important to patients. Subjective evaluations such as health and functioning questionnaires have proven to be valid and responsive in assessing outcomes of interest. The debate remained over the appropriate treatment, based on the severity of CTS, and the most suitable outcome questionnaire to measure responsiveness of the treatment. This review will focus on current evidence from clinical outcome research regarding measurement of CTS severity scoring systems and comparisons of current instruments based on desirable properties of a validated questionnaire.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Sanz JR, Zamora B, San José J, Terán P. Carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg. 1994;19(6):1056–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Phalen GS. The carpal-tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg. 1966;48(2):211–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Keith MW, Masear V, Amadio PC, et al. Treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17(6):397–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Patterson JD, Simmons BP. Outcomes assessment in carpal tunnel syndrome. Hand Clin. 2002;18(2):359–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chung KC. Commentary: severe carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg. 2003;28(4):645–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rempel D, Evanoff B, Amadio PC, et al. Consensus criteria for the classification of carpal tunnel syndrome in epidemiologic studies. Am J Public Health. 1998;88(10):1447–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Priganc VW, Henry SM. The relationship among five common carpal tunnel syndrome tests and the severity of carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Ther. 2003;16(3):225–36.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gerritsen AA, de Vet HC, Scholten RJ, Bertelsmann FW, de Krom MC, Bouter LM. Splinting vs surgery in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288(10):1245–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Changulani M, Okonkwo U, Keswani T, Kalairajah Y. Outcome evaluation measures for wrist and hand–which one to choose? Int Orthop. 2008;32(1):1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Levine DW, Simmons BP, Koris MJ, et al. A self-administered questionnaire for the assessment of severity of symptoms and functional status in carpal tunnel syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg. 1993;75(11):1585–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Katz JN, Gelberman RH, Wright EA, Lew RA, Liang MH. Responsiveness of self-reported and objective measures of disease severity in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care. 1994;32(11):1127–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Amadio PC, Silverstein MD, Ilstrup DM, Schleck CD, Jensen LM. Outcome assessment for carpal tunnel surgery: the relative responsiveness of generic, arthritis-specific, disease-specific, and physical examination measures. J Hand Surg. 1996;21(3):338–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hobby J, Watts C, Elliot D. Validity and responsiveness of the patient evaluation measure as an outcome measure for carpal tunnel syndrome. J Hand Surg. 2005;30(4):350–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Burwell SM. Setting value-based payment goals—HHS efforts to improve US health care. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(10):897–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bland JD. A neurophysiological grading scale for carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve. 2000;23(8):1280–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kadzielski J, Malhotra LR, Zurakowski D, Lee S-GP, Jupiter JB, Ring D. Evaluation of preoperative expectations and patient satisfaction after carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg. 2008;33(10):1783–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Piazzini DB, Aprile I, Ferrara PE, et al. A systematic review of conservative treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. Clin Rehabil. 2007;21(4):299–314.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gerritsen A, Uitdehaag B, Van Geldere D, Scholten R, de Vet H, Bouter L. Systematic review of randomized clinical trials of surgical treatment for carpal tunnel syndrome. Br J Surg. 2001;88(10):1285–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ono S, Clapham PJ, Chung KC. Optimal management of carpal tunnel syndrome. Int J Gen Med. 2010;3:255.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Katz JN, Larson MG, Sabra A, et al. The carpal tunnel syndrome: diagnostic utility of the history and physical examination findings. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112(5):321–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jablecki CK, Andary CMT, So YT, Wilkins DE, Williams FH, Committee AQA. Literature review of the usefulness of nerve conduction studies and electromyography for the evaluation of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. Muscle Nerve. 1993;16(12):1392–414.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kuschner S, Ebramzadeh E, Johnson D, Brien W, Sherman R. Tinel’s sign and Phalen’s test in carpal tunnel syndrome. Orthopedics. 1992;15(11):1297–302.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gelberman RH, Hergenroeder PT, Hargens AR, Lundborg GN, Akeson WH. The carpal tunnel syndrome. A study of carpal canal pressures. J Bone Joint Surg. 1981;63(3):380–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Georgiew F. Provocative tests used in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Rehabil. 2007;11(4):7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wöber C, Zeitlhofer J. The serial use of two provocative tests in the clinical diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome. Acta Neurol Scand. 1998;98(5):328–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ware JE, Kosinski M. SF-36 physical & mental health summary scales: a manual for users of version 1. Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bessette L, Sangha O, Kuntz KM, et al. Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care. 1998;36(4):491–502.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gay RE, Amadio PC, Johnson JC. Comparative responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand, the carpal tunnel questionnaire, and the SF-36 to clinical change after carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg. 2003;28(2):250–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kotsis SV, Chung KC. Responsiveness of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire and the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire in carpal tunnel surgery. J Hand Surg. 2005;30(1):81–6.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Chung KC. Current status of outcomes research in carpal tunnel surgery. Hand. 2006;1(1):9–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Ware J. Methodological considerations in the selection of health status assessment procedures. In: Assessment of quality of life in clinical trials of cardiovascular therapies. New York: Lejacq; 1984. p. 87–111.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Chung KC, Pillsbury MS, Walters MR, Hayward RA. Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg. 1998;23(4):575–87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Chatterjee JS, Price PE. Comparative responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and the Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire after carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg. 2009;34(2):273–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. van der Giesen FJ, Nelissen RG, Arendzen JH, de Jong Z, Wolterbeek R, Vlieland TPV. Responsiveness of the Michigan hand outcomes questionnaire–Dutch language version in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(6):1121–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Öksüz Ç, Akel BS, Oskay D, Leblebicioğlu G, Hayran KM. Cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and reliability process of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire in a Turkish population. J Hand Surg. 2011;36(3):486–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Chung KC, Hamill JB, Walters MR, Hayward RA. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ): assessment of responsiveness to clinical change. Ann Plast Surg. 1999;42(6):619–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Horng Y-S, Lin M-C, Feng C-T, Huang C-H, H-C W, Wang J-D. Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire in patients with hand injury. J Hand Surg. 2010;35(3):430–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kotsis SV, Lau FH, Chung KC. Responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and physical measurements in outcome studies of distal radius fracture treatment. J Hand Surg. 2007;32(1):84–90.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Waljee JF, Kim HM, Burns PB, Chung KC. Development of a brief, 12-item version of the Michigan Hand Questionnaire. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(1):208.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Beaton DE, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Wright JG, Tarasuk V, Bombardier C. Measuring the wole or the parts?: Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure in different regions of the upper extremity. J Hand Ther. 2001;14(2):128–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gummesson C, Atroshi I, Ekdahl C. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003;4(1):11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Hudak PL, Amadio P, Bombardier C. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. Am J Ind Med. 1996;29(6):602–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN. Development of the QuickDASH: comparison of three item-reduction approaches. J Bone Joint Surg. 2005;87(5):1038–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Manktelow RT, Binhammer P, Tomat LR, Bril V, Szalai JP. Carpal tunnel syndrome: Cross-sectional and outcome study in Ontario workers. J Hand Surg. 2004;29A:307–17.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Gummesson C, Ward MM, Atroshi I. The shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH): validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7(1):44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Yucel H, Seyithanoglu H. Choosing the most efficacious scoring method for carpal tunnel syndrome. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2015;49(1):23–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. In: Archives of psychology. New York: New York University; 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Stewart AL. Measuring functioning and well-being: the medical outcomes study approach. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  50. McHorney CA, Ware Jr JE, Rogers W, Raczek AE, Lu JR. The validity and relative precision of MOS short-and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 1992;30(5 Suppl):MS253–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(5):459–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Press SJ, Press JS. Bayesian statistics: principles, models, and applications. New York: Wiley; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Macartney FJ. Diagnostic logic. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1987;295(6609):1325–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. O’Gradaigh D, Merry P. A diagnostic algorithm for carpal tunnel syndrome based on Bayes’s theorem. Rheumatology. 2000;39(9):1040–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Elstein AS, Schwarz A. Clinical problem solving and diagnostic decision making: selective review of the cognitive literature. BMJ. 2002;324(7339):729–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Achim A, Bezerianos A, Tsakalides P. Novel Bayesian multiscale method for speckle removal in medical ultrasound images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2001;20(8):772–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Rifkin RD, Hood Jr WB. Bayesian analysis of electrocardiographic exercise stress testing. N Engl J Med. 1977;297(13):681–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Miettinen OS, Caro JJ. Foundations of medical diagnosis: what actually are the parameters involved in Bayes’ theorem? Stat Med. 1994;13(3):201–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Midcareer Investigator Award in Patient-Oriented Research (2 K24-AR053120-06) (to Dr. Kevin C. Chung).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Family Medicine, The University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Elham Mahmoudi

  2. University of Michigan, North Campus Research Complex, 2800 Plymouth Rd, Building 16, Room G024W, Ann Arbor, MI, 48202, USA

    Elham Mahmoudi

  3. Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Kevin C. Chung

Authors
  1. Elham Mahmoudi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin C. Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elham Mahmoudi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Boston University/Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Scott F. M. Duncan

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kindai University Hospital, Osaka, Japan

    Ryosuke Kakinoki

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mahmoudi, E., Chung, K.C. (2017). Severity Scoring Systems for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and Outcome Tools. In: Duncan, S., Kakinoki, R. (eds) Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and Related Median Neuropathies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57010-5_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57010-5_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-57008-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-57010-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation