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