Skip to main content

Table 4 Diagnostic Accuracy of the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament test for CTS diagnosis

From: Diagnostic accuracy of sensory and motor tests for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome: a systematic review

Study (Authors, year)

Sensitivity (%)

Specificity (%)

PPV (%)

NPV (%)

+LR

-LR

Buch-Jaeger & Foucher 1994 [21]

59

59

65

46

1.43*

0.69*

Dale et al. 2011 [8]

RS#1

L = 34.6

R = 57.9

RS#1

L = 74.1

R = 69.8

RS#1

L = 3.1

R = 6.4

RS#1

L = 97.9

R = 97.9

RS#1

L = 1.3 (0.78–2.27)

R = 1.9 (1.44–2.53)

RS#1

L = 0.9 (0.67–1.17)

R = 0.6 (0.41–0.88)

RS#2

L = 35.7

R = 45.2

RS#2

L = 76.8

R = 74.8

RS#2

L = 33.2

R = 41.9

RS#2

L = 78.7

R = 77.3

RS#2

L = 1.5 (1.25–1.83)

R = 1.8 (1.51–2.07)

RS#2

L = 0.8 (0.76–0.92)

R = 0.7 (0.66–0.82)

RS#3

L = 54.5

R = 66.7

RS#3

L = 74.0

R = 69.9

RS#3

L = 2.1

R = 4.9

RS#3

L = 99.4

R = 98.9

RS#3

L = 2.1 (1.21–3.61)

R = 2.2 (1.64–2.96)

RS#3

L = 0.6 (0.32–1.17)

R = 0.5 (0.27–0.84)

MacDermid et al. 1994 [25]

SWMF > 2.83

Tester 1 = 97

Tester 2 = 97

SWMF > 2.83

Tester 1 = 23

Tester 2 = 9

NR

NR

SWMF > 2.83

Tester 1 = 1.25*

Tester 2 = 1.06*

SWMF > 2.83

Tester 1 = 0.13*

Tester 2 = 0.33*

SWMF > 2.83 & > D5

Tester 1 = 86

Tester 2 = 85

SWMF > 2.83 & > D5

Tester 1 = 60

Tester 2 = 32

SWMF > 2.83 & > D5

Tester 1 = 2.15*

Tester 2 = 1.25*

SWMF > 2.83 & > D5

Tester 1 = 0.23*

Tester 2 = 0.46*

SWMF > 3.22

Tester 1 = 79

Tester 2 = 96

SWMF > 3.22

Tester 1 = 64

Tester 2 = 34

SWMF > 3.22

Tester 1 = 2.19*

Tester 2 = 1.45*

SWMF > 3.22

Tester 1 = 0.32*

Tester 2 = 0.18*

SWMF > 3.22 & > D5

Tester 1 = 70

Tester 2 = 72

SWMF > 3.22 & > D5

Tester 1 = 70

Tester 2 = 47

SWMF > 3.22 & > D5

Tester 1 = 2.33*

Tester 2 = 1.35*

SWMF > 3.22 & > D5

Tester 1 = 0.42*

Tester 2 = 0.59*

MacDermid et al. 1997 [26]

Tester 1 = 86

Tester 2 = 85

Tester 1 = 60

Tester 2 = 32

NR

NR

Tester 1 = 2.15*

Tester 2 = 1.25*

Tester 1 = 0.23*

Tester 2 = 0.46*

Pagel et al. 2002 [27]

SWM > 2.83

98

SWM > 2.83

15

SWM > 2.83

56

SWM > 2.83

88

SWM > 2.83

1.15*

SWM > 2.83

0.13*

SWMF > 2.83 & > D5

13

SWMF > 2.83 & > D5

88

SWMF > 2.83 & > D5

53

SWMF > 2.83 & > D5

47

SWMF > 2.83 & > D5

1.08*

SWMF > 2.83 & > D5

0.98*

Szabo et al. 1999 [29]

Neutral:

65 (95%CI 52–75)

Neutral:

42 (95%CI 30–52)

Neutral:

1%P = 1

5%P = 6

10%P = 11

15%P = 17

20%P = 22

Neutral:

1%P = 99

5%P = 96

10%P = 92

15%P = 87

20%P = 83

Neutral:

1.12*

Neutral:

0.83*

Phalen’s:

83 (95%CI 69–88)

Phalen’s:

44 (95%CI 32–55)

Phalen’s:

1%P = 1

5%P = 7

10%P = 14

15%P = 21

20%P = 27

Phalen’s:

1%P = 99

5%P = 98

10%P = 96

15%P = 94

20%P = 91

Phalen’s:

1.48*

Phalen’s:

0.38*

Yildirim & Gunduz 2015 [6]

SWMF > 2.83

98

SWMF > 2.83

17

SWMF > 2.83

44

SWMF > 2.83

93

SWMF > 2.83

1.18*

SWMF > 2.83

0.12*

SWMF > 3.22

49

SWMF > 3.22

93

SWMF > 3.22

83

SWMF > 3.22

74

SWMF > 3.22

7*

SWMF > 3.22

0.55*

  1. PPV Positive Predictive Value, NPV Negative Predictive Value, +LR Positive Likelihood Ratio, −LR Negative Likelihood Ratio, CI confidence interval, NR not reported, RS reference standard, SWMFs Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments
  2. In Dale et al. ‘s study, the first reference standard (RS#1) was the modified Katz hand diagram, the second reference standard (RS#2) was NCS, and the third reference standard (RS#3) was a consensus criteria of CTS case definition; MacDermid et al. ‘s study (1997) reported the SWMFs test results based on four different decision rules, which we have reported separately in the table; In Szabo’s study, the positive and negative predicted values were calculated based on five hypothetical CTS prevalence (1, 5, 10, 15, and 20%) and two testing positions (neutral, Phalen’s) which we reported separately in the table; * values calculated by the authors of this study
Back to article page

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us