1. Atroshi, I., Gummesson, C., Johnsson, R., Ornstein, E., Ranstam, J., Rosen, I., “Prevalence of carpal tunnel syndrome in a general population.” JAMA, 1999; 282:2:153.
Refutes the misguided concept of CTS as an infrequent problem, but rather suggests it occurs in about 1 out of 5 or 6 adults.
2. * Dekrommct, F.M., Kinpschild, P.G., Kester, A.D.M., Thijas, C.T., Boekkooi, P.F., Spaans, S.F., “Carpal tunnel syndrome: Prevalence in the general population.” J Clinical Epidemiology, 1992; 45: 373-376.
This flawed study with significant limitations attempted to take a random sampling of adults age 25 through 74 of the Netherlands, screening them based upon whether or not they experienced nocturnal paresthesias in their upper extremities, then followed through with nerve conduction study on those that responded to their questionnaire affirmatively. With the limitations of the this study, they found the presence of paresthesias in one’s hands at night have less than a 50% predicative value for CTS based on the electrodiagnostic standard they utilized (ring finger median and ulnar difference). They did conclude a prevalence rate of undetected CTS (those who had not come into a physician for evaluation or treatment), 6% adult women with 3.4% having already been diagnosed with CTS. Thus a total of almost 10% of the adult female population. The rate for men was much lower. The rates of CTS were obviously underestimated in this study, if not for any other reason because nocturnal paraesthesias do not occur in all patients with CTS. Additionally, the upper limit of what was considered normal for median distal motor latency on NCS was set a bit too high, thus it would have excluded some people who otherwise would have been considered to have a positive study.
3. Ferry, S., Pritchard, T., Keenan, J., Croft, P., Silman, A.J. “Estimating the prevalence of delayed median nerve conduction in the general population.” British Journal of Rheum, 1998; 37:630-635.
Sets the new realistic figure for high incidence of CTS at 15-20% of adults.
4. Stephens, J.C., Witt, J.C., Smith, B.E., Weaver, A.L., “The frequency of carpal tunnel syndrome in computer users at a medical facility.” Neurology, 2001; 56: 1568-1570.
Despite the source (Department of Neurology at the Mayo Clinic), this study like is predecessor 20 years earlier had many design flaws. 29% of the employees at the Mayo Clinic agreed to complete a questionnaire (88%), 27 employees, (10% of the subgroup) met clinical criteria for CTS with 9 (3.5%) having this confirmed by NCS. They thus concluded that the frequency of CTS in computer users was similar to that in the general population. Though their final conclusion is correct based upon clinical experience and other epidemiological type studies, and the failure of literature to reflect a particularly high incidence than in any occupation, their assumption that the incidence is only 3.5% in the adult population is naïve and in contradiction to other more thorough, overall better performed, epidemiological studies. The importance of this study is the fact that they did not show any increased risk of CTS in those people using computers on frequent or continuous basis in day-to-day work, regardless of their duration of employment.
5. Vessey, M., Villard-Mackintosh, L., Yeates, D. “Epidemiology of carpal tunnel syndrome in women of childbearing age. Findings in a large cohort study.” International J of Epidemiology, 1990; 19:3: 655-659.
Don’t bother to read. Poorly performed study from which no solid conclusions can be drawn. Included in this bibliography only for completeness.