Benedetti/Sennwald 1995.
| Methods | Randomised prospective study | |
| Participants |
Sennwald 1995 47 participants (mean age 52.6 years): 10 men (mean age 55.7 years) and 37 women (mean age 51.7 years) 25 participants (mean age 48.6 years) were treated with ECTR and 22 participants (mean age 57 years) with an open procedure Indications for surgery were based on positive clinical findings (Phalen's test) and positive neuroconductive findings Symptoms were present for an average of 37 weeks in both groups Benedetti 1996 45 participants (mean age 53 years), 79% women. Mean duration of symptoms 9 months ECTR: 1‐portal Agee technique (23 participants) vs OCTR (22 participants) Electrophysiologically confirmed CTS, idiopathic CTS |
|
| Interventions | 1‐portal ECTR (Agee technique) vs OCTR | |
| Outcomes |
Sennwald 1995 Follow‐up at 4, 8 and 12 weeks Grip and pinch strength, complications Benedetti 1996 Return to work Complications |
|
| Notes | In 1 ECTR participant, the surgery was converted to OCTR owing to poor visualisation of the ligament | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | The authors "used a lottery‐like procedure. Slips, defining the procedure, were drawn at random from a drum by the nurse giving the appointment for surgery" (Sennwald 1995) |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | There is no reference to allocation concealment |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | No information given. Participants and personnel could not be blinded |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | No information given. Participants and personnel could not be blinded |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | There is no reference to participants lost to follow‐up Benedetti 1996; 2 participants were lost from the ECTR group and 3 from the OCTR group for grip strength. No reasons are provided but numbers are small and not likely to change the conclusions |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | The authors present all the outcomes. They give P values for each comparison (although no SDs) |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | No difference in baseline characteristics between groups The authors do not mention conflicts of interest or financial support |