Figure 1.
Flowchart for determining the diagnostic and therapeutic thresholds by multilevel side-to-side image contrast ultrasonography.
Citation: Elena Claire Ricci, Stefanella Stranieri, Cecilia Casetta, Claudio Soregaroli. Consumer preferences for Made in Italy food products: The role of ethnocentrism and product knowledge[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(1): 88-110. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.1.88
| [1] | Muhammad Z. Ul Haque, Peng Du, Leo K. Cheng . A combined functional dorsal nerve model of the foot. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(9): 9321-9334. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022433 |
| [2] | Lingli Gan, Xiaoling Yin, Jiating Huang, Bin Jia . Transcranial Doppler analysis based on computer and artificial intelligence for acute cerebrovascular disease. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(2): 1695-1715. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023077 |
| [3] | Xiao Zou, Jintao Zhai, Shengyou Qian, Ang Li, Feng Tian, Xiaofei Cao, Runmin Wang . Improved breast ultrasound tumor classification using dual-input CNN with GAP-guided attention loss. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(8): 15244-15264. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023682 |
| [4] | Shanzheng Wang, Xinhui Xie, Chao Li, Jun Jia, Changhong Chen . Integrative network analysis of N6 methylation-related genes reveal potential therapeutic targets for spinal cord injury. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 8174-8187. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021405 |
| [5] | Yali Ouyang, Zhuhuang Zhou, Weiwei Wu, Jin Tian, Feng Xu, Shuicai Wu, Po-Hsiang Tsui . A review of ultrasound detection methods for breast microcalcification. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(4): 1761-1785. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019085 |
| [6] | Yihua Song, Chen Ge, Ningning Song, Meili Deng . A novel dictionary learning-based approach for Ultrasound Elastography denoising. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(11): 11533-11543. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022537 |
| [7] | Kun Lan, Jianzhen Cheng, Jinyun Jiang, Xiaoliang Jiang, Qile Zhang . Modified UNet++ with atrous spatial pyramid pooling for blood cell image segmentation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(1): 1420-1433. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023064 |
| [8] | Norbert Hungerbühler . Optimal control in pharmacokinetic drug administration. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(5): 5312-5328. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022249 |
| [9] | Meng Jiang, Bo Zhou, Lei Chen . Identification of drug side effects with a path-based method. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(6): 5754-5771. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022269 |
| [10] | Wei-wei Jiang, Guang-quan Zhou, Ka-Lee Lai, Song-yu Hu, Qing-yu Gao, Xiao-yan Wang, Yong-ping Zheng . A fast 3-D ultrasound projection imaging method for scoliosis assessment. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(3): 1067-1081. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019051 |
Ultrasonography of peripheral nerves has become an increasingly popular method for the diagnosis of peripheral entrapment neuropathy. Electrophysiological examination is the gold standard for the diagnosis of this type of disease [1], and mainly reflects the functional changes of the nerve [2]. Studies have shown that changes in patient symptoms are associated with morphological changes of the nerve [3,4,5,6,7], thus the nerve image information is essential in disease diagnosis. The shortcomings of electrophysiological examination primarily include two aspects: it is an invasive procedure and it does not reflect the morphological changes of the nerve. Ultrasound examination in medical applications and researches is widely implemented [8,9,10], especially real-time three-dimensional ultrasound method [11,12]. Ultrasound examination can avoid these two shortcomings of electrophysiological examination and has become an important approach to diagnose peripheral entrapment neuropathy [13].
Ultrasound examination faces significant challenges in determining a specific diagnostic protocol and criteria, because the obtained ultrasound images do not provide complete morphological information. The main parameters for diagnosis include the following: (1) cross-sectional area (CSA) of the diseased nerve segment [14,15,16], (2) CSA ratio, difference or mean to that of the adjacent segment [15,17], (3) CSA ratio to that of the adjacent nerves in the same level [18], (4) ultrasound findings of increased blood flow within the nerve [19,20], and (5) shear wave elastography image [21,22]. Currently, the major shortcoming of ultrasound diagnosis for peripheral entrapment neuropathy is the presence of individual variation [23,24,25,26]. The examination site is limited to a certain point or a segment within the lesion range but does not reflect the overall condition or change trend of the diseased nerve. The range of neuropathy cannot be defined before treatment.
Therefore, to eliminate the shortcomings of the current diagnostic methods, a multilevel side-to-side image contrast ultrasound technique was proposed for the diagnosis of unilateral peripheral entrapment neuropathy in this study. This method will maximally eliminate individual variation, explore the full course of the lesion segment of the nerve, reflect the trend of neuromorphic changes, and identify the sites as well as the range of neuropathy before treatment.
The three most common types of peripheral entrapment neuropathy, namely, carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS) and radial nerve compression (RNC), were selected as the study targets. The diagnostic and therapeutic thresholds were determined by multilevel side-to-side image contrast ultrasonography. The flow chart of the study is shown in Figure 1.
First, ultrasonography was performed to measure the CSA at multiple corresponding levels of the affected and contralateral nerve. Next, the cross-sectional area swelling ratio (CSASR) was calculated, i.e., the degree of swelling of the affected side relative to that of the contralateral side-CSASR = CSA of the affected nerve / CSA of the corresponding site of the contralateral nerve.
Second, the diagnostic threshold was obtained using the receiver operation characteristic (ROC) curve. The diagnostic threshold was calculated using the maximal CSASR of the patient and the maximal CSASR of the normal controls.
Third, the ROC curve was used to calculate the therapeutic threshold. The therapeutic threshold was calculated by using the maximal CSASR of the surgical treatment group and the maximal CSASR of the conservative treatment group.
Finally, the segment of the diseased nerve was identified. The most severe point of the diseased nerve was identified according to the location presenting the maximal CSASR. The nerve segment with a CSASR greater than the diagnostic threshold was identified as the diseased nerve segment.
A Philips iU22 ultrasound system (Philips Electronics, Amsterdam, Netherlands) was used to perform a longitudinal ultrasound scan of the upper limbs of the patients to observe the general morphological characteristics of the nerves and to measure the CSA of multiple corresponding levels of the affected and the contralateral nerve. A longitudinal scan is used to scan the nerve longitudinally along the direction of nerve travel and determines changes in the diameter of the nerve along the longitudinal direction. It can observe whether the surrounding tissue produces exogenous compression to the nerve and can observe echo changes in the inside and outer membrane of the nerve. The measured cross sections were determined according to the three types of neuropathy, as stated below.
CTS: The diseased nerve segment is approximately only 5 cm in length. Therefore, it is necessary to scan in three levels only: M1, M2 and M3. M1 represents the level of the pisiform bone (carpal tunnel entrance), M2 represents the level 5 cm proximal to pisiform bone level, and M3 represents the level of the hamate bone (the midpoint of the carpal tunnel) (Figure 2A).
CuTS: The nerve lesion is located in the range from U1 to U6 regions. The measurement was performed at six levels, from U1 to U6. U1 is located at the midpoint of ulnar nerve groove, U2 is located in the level of the medial epicondyle, U3 is located at the level 9 cm proximal to the medial epicondyle, U4 is located at the level 10 cm proximal to the medial epicondyle, U5 is located at the level 5 cm distal to the midpoint of ulnar nerve groove, and U6 is located at the level 10 cm distal to the midpoint of the ulnar nerve groove (Figure 2B).
RNC: The nerve lesion is located in the range from R1 to R6 regions. The measurement was performed at six levels, from R1 to R6. R1 is located at the level of the midpoint of the spiral groove, R2 is located at the level 3 cm proximal to the midpoint of the spiral groove, R3 is located at the level 5 cm distal to the midpoint of the spiral groove, R4 is at the level of the lateral epicondyle, R5 is located at the level 5 cm distal to the lateral epicondyle, and R6 is located at the level 8 cm distal to the lateral epicondyle (Figure 2C).
The SPSS statistical software 19.0 (IBM, Armonk, USA) was used for statistical analysis. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to analyse the correlation between the ultrasound morphological index and the electrophysiological index. The ROC curve was used to obtain diagnostic and therapeutic thresholds. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
The mean of the maximal CSA of the affected and the normal side were calculated, and the t-test was used to analyse the significant difference between the two groups. The mean of the maximal CSASR was then calculated. In electrophysiological examination, motor nerve conduction velocity (MNCV), motor nerve amplitude (MNAP), sensory nerve conduction velocity (SNCV) and sensory nerve amplitude (SNAP) reflect the extent of motor demyelinating lesions, motor axonal lesions, sensory nerve lesions, and sensory axonal lesions, respectively. The correlation analysis between the maximal CSASR and MNCV, MNAP, SNCV, and SNAP were performed to determine the reliability of CSASR to reflect the extent of the four types of lesions. According to the maximal CSASRs of the patients and normal controls, the ROC curve was used to calculate the diagnostic threshold and its sensitivity, specificity, area under the ROC curve (AUC) and P value. According to the maximal CSASRs of patients who underwent conservative treatment and patients who underwent surgical treatment, the ROC curve was used to calculate the therapeutic threshold and its sensitivity, specificity, AUC and P values. The location and distribution of the maximal CSASR was determined.
A total of 62 patients with CTS, CuTS or RNC who were treated in China from March 2016 to July 2018 and 30 subjects in the normal control group were included in this study (Table 1). The patient data was provided by the following 5 hospitals: Ningbo No. 6 Hospital, Cixi Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Kyer Hospital, Hu Fangdou Orthopedic Hospital and Lin'an Orthopedic Hospital.
| Number of people(n) | Age (y)(mean±SD) | M/F (n) | Left/right (n) | Mean duration of disease (m)(mean±SD) | Conservative/surgical treatment (n) | |
| CTS | 15 | 52.2 ± 12.8 | 6/9 | 9/6 | 17.3 ± 10.2 | 4/11 |
| CuTS | 34 | 50.7 ± 14.3 | 28/6 | 16/18 | 14.9 ± 7.4 | 9/25 |
| RNC | 13 | 39.8 ± 18.5 | 10/3 | 8/5 | 1.9 ± 1.0 | 8/5 |
| Control group | 30 | 45.4 ± 15.1 | 17/13 | 30/30 | 0 | - |
DownLoad:
CSV
The neurophysiological examination of the patients was performed using a Haishen NDI-092 electrophysiological/evoked potential meter (Haishen Medical Electronic Instrument Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China). The bipolar transdermal stimulator and the surface recording electrode were used during the examination, and the temperature of the distal limb was controlled at approximately 32 ℃.
The diagnostic and therapeutic thresholds for CTS, CuTS and RNC were obtained by statistical analysis, and then the thresholds were used to retrospectively validate the data in 62 patients undergoing ultrasound examination. The diagnostic accuracy rate was 92.9%, and the accuracy for selecting the treatment method was 87.1%. All preoperative ultrasound findings were consistent with the intraoperative findings. All patients had varying degrees of symptom improvement after treatment, and rare lesion sites were not missed.
The mean of the maximal CSA and CSASR in patients with CTS, CuTS or RNC are shown in Table 2. The paired t-tests showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the maximal CSA values between the affected side and the normal side.
| Mean of maximal CSA (cm2) (mean ± S D) | Side-to-side CSA significant difference (P value) | Mean of maximal CSASR (mean ± SD) | ||
| Affected side | Normal side | |||
| CTS | 0.148 ± 0.046 | 0.105 ± 0.021 | = 0.001 | 1.53 ± 0.35 |
| CuTS | 0.168 ± 0.071 | 0.092 ± 0.028 | < 0.001 | 2.99 ± 0.99 |
| RNC | 0.093 ± 0.042 | 0.060 ± 0.018 | < 0.001 | 2.98 ± 1.40 |
DownLoad:
CSV
Correlation analyses between the maximal CSASR and MNCV, MNAP, SNCV and SNAP in patients with CTS, CuTS or RNC were performed, and the correlation coefficients are given in Table 3. The maximal CSASR of the median nerve was negatively correlated with MNCV, and significantly negatively correlated with SNCV and SNAP. The maximal CSASR of the ulnar nerve was negatively correlated with MNAP and significantly negatively correlated with MNCV, SNCV and SNAP. There was no significant correlation between the maximal CSASR of the radial nerve and MNCV, MNAP, SNCV or SNAP.
| MNCV | MNAP | SNCV | SNAP | ||
| Maximal CSASR of the median nerve | correlation coefficient | −0.610* | −0.059 | −0.659** | −0.745** |
| n | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | |
| P | 0.016 | 0.834 | 0.008 | 0.001 | |
| Maximal CSASR of the ulnar nerve | correlation coefficient | −0.515** | −0.433* | −0.651** | −0.636** |
| n | 34 | 34 | 32△ | 33△△ | |
| P | 0.002 | 0.011 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |
| Maximal CSASR of the radial nerve | correlation coefficient | −0.177 | −0.221 | 0.146 | −0.271 |
| n | 13 | 13 | 10△△△ | 13 | |
| P | 0.563 | 0.468 | 0.688 | 0.370 | |
| * The correlation is significant when the confidence coefficient is 0.05. **The correlation is significant when the confidence coefficient is 0.01. △ SNCV was not recorded during electrophysiological examination in 2 patients with CuTS. △△ SNAP was not recorded during electrophysiological examination in a patient with CuTS. △△△ SNCV was not recorded during electrophysiological examination in 3 patients with RNC. |
|||||
DownLoad:
CSV
The calculated diagnostic thresholds for patients with CTS, CuTS or RNC are shown in Table 4. The diagnostic thresholds for CTS, CuTS, and RNC were 1.22, 1.51, and 1.50, respectively. That is, if the maximal CSASR value of CTS, CuTS and RNC was greater than or equal to the diagnostic threshold of 1.22, 1.51 and 1.50, respectively, the entrapment neuropathy could be confirmed. If they were less than the diagnostic threshold, entrapment neuropathy could be ruled out. At the same time, the sensitivity, specificity, AUC and P value were calculated, and they were statistically significant.
| Diagnostic Threshold | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | AUC | P | |
| CTS | 1.22 | 86.7 | 83.3 | 0.862 | < 0.001 |
| CuTS | 1.51 | 91.2 | 93.3 | 0.928 | < 0.001 |
| RNC | 1.50 | 100 | 86.7 | 0.982 | < 0.001 |
DownLoad:
CSV
The CSASR thresholds for the conservative treatment group and the surgical treatment group were statistically calculated (Table 5). Independent sample t-test analysis showed that the mean maximal CSASR value in the surgical treatment group were significantly higher than in the conservative treatment group. The surgical therapeutic thresholds of the CSASR for CTS, CuTS and RNC were 1.48, 1.67 and 3.04, respectively. That is, conservative treatment should be chosen when the maximal CSASR of the diseased nerve was less than the therapeutic threshold. Surgical treatment should be selected when the maximal CSASR of the diseased nerve is greater than or equal to the therapeutic threshold.
| Mean of maximal CSASR(mean ± SD) | Differences between conservative and surgical treatment groups(P) | Therapeutic threshold | Sensitivi-ty (%) | Specifici-ty (%) | AUC | P | ||
| Conservative treatment group | Surgical treatment group | |||||||
| CTS | 1.23 ± 0.23 | 1.64 ± 0.33 | 0.043 | 1.48 | 63.6 | 100 | 0.846 | 0.01 |
| CuTS | 1.48 ± 0.35 | 2.58 ± 0.99 | 0.003 | 1.67 | 100 | 79.4 | 0.95 | < 0.001 |
| RNC | 2.21 ± 0.55 | 4.17 ± 1.54 | 0.045 | 3.04 | 80 | 100 | 0.90 | 0.001 |
DownLoad:
CSV
The sites with maximal CSASR in patients are presented in Table 6. The maximal CSASR in CTS patients is mainly located at the entrance of the carpal tunnel and mostly located near the elbow joint in the patients with CuTS. The distribution of the maximal CSASR values in RNC patients was random. The sites of each maximal CSASR were marked with red dots (Figure 3).
| Sites where maximal CSASR was obtained (%) | Ratio (%) | |
| CTS | Carpal tunnel entrance | 53.3 |
| CuTS | The site between 1 cm proximal to U2 and U5 | 94.1 |
| RNC | Scattered distribution | - |
DownLoad:
CSV
A case of right carpal tunnel syndrome is displayed in Figure 4. The patient was admitted due to right hand numbness and weak thumb movement for 1 year. Ultrasound examination revealed that the median nerve within the right carpal tunnel was significantly swollen compared to that in the left side. The maximal CSASR was 1.78 and was obtained at the midpoint of the carpal tunnel, i.e., the level of hamate bone. Surgical treatment was chosen because the CSASR was greater than the therapeutic threshold. The intraoperative findings confirmed that the affected nerve segment was confined to the nerve within the carpal tunnel, particular at the level of the midpoint of the carpal tunnel, with congested epineurium. The Swiss pushing knife was used to release the carpal tunnel during surgery. At the 10-week follow-up visit, the patient's symptom of numbness had subsided, and the thenar muscle strength increased from grade M3 to M4.
A case of left cubital tunnel syndrome is illustrated in Figure 5. The patient was admitted due to ulnar numbness of the left hand and weak fine movement for 4 months. An ultrasound examination showed that the left ulnar nerve at the elbow level was significantly swollen compared to that in the right side. The maximal CSASR was 2.33 and was obtained at the level of medial epicondyle. Surgical treatment was selected. Intraoperative findings showed that the ulnar nerve at the elbow level was swollen, particularly at the level of the medial epicondyle in which the nerve segment tissue was harder than the adjacent site. During the operation, ulnar nerve release was performed with the anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve under the fascia. The patient's symptom of hand numbness was immediately relieved after the postoperative anaesthetic effect subsided. At the follow-up visit 3 months after treatment, the patient's symptom of hand numbness was partially improved, and the strength of the intrinsic muscles of the hand increased from the grade M2 to M3.
A patient with right radial nerve compression is presented in Figure 6. The patient was admitted due to numbness of the first web of hand and disability of wrist, finger and thumb extension for 3 months. An ultrasound examination revealed that the radial nerve in the right spiral groove was significantly swollen compared to that in the left side. The maximal CSASR was 3.14 and was obtained at the level of the midpoint of the spiral groove. The CSASR was greater than the therapeutic threshold, and the diagnosis was confirmed. Surgical treatment was selected. The intraoperative findings showed that the middle segment of the upper arm of the radial nerve was swollen, particular at the level of the midpoint of the spiral groove in which the nerve segment tissue was harder than that in the adjacent site. Radial nerve release was performed. At the 4-month follow-up visit, the strength of the extensor carpi muscle and the extensor pollicis muscle increased from grade M0 to M2.
The establishment of a uniform standard for ultrasound examination of the peripheral nerve remains a challenge. This study has verified that there is a statistically significant difference in the CSA of the nerves between the affected and normal sides and demonstrated that the nerve in the patient's healthy limb can be used as a control for diagnosis [27,28,29]. According to the statistical analysis of 62 patients with entrapment neuropathy, the CSASR diagnostic and therapeutic thresholds for CTS, CuTS and RNC were determined. In terms of diagnosis, entrapment neuropathy can be diagnosed when the maximal CSASR of the nerve is greater than or equal to the diagnostic threshold, otherwise entrapment neuropathy is excluded. In terms of treatment, conservative treatment should be selected when the maximal CSASR of the nerve is less than the therapeutic threshold, otherwise surgical treatment is selected. The novel multilevel side-to-side image contrast ultrasonography proposed in this study can greatly reduce the impact of individual variation and can explore the full course of the diseased nerve. It is a novel approach for the diagnosis, treatment selection, and determination of treatment sites in patients with unilateral peripheral entrapment neuropathy.
Previous studies [26,30,31] have shown that inter-individual variation, intra-neural variation, and inter-neural variation exist. In normal subjects, the CSA at the same level of the median nerve, ulnar nerve, and radial nerve between the left and right sides is not significantly different, indicating a symmetry CSA of the bilateral nerves [27,32,33]. There was a statistically significant difference in CSA between the affected limb of patients with CuTS and the limb in normal control group [27]. But there was a statistically significant difference of CSA in the ulnar nerve between the normal side limb of patients and limb in normal control group; thus, it is controversial to use the patient's contralateral ulnar nerve as a control. The patient's normal side limb can be considered as a special part of asymptomatic limbs that tend to develop disease [28]. We verified that there was a statistically significant difference in CSA between the bilateral nerves of the patient and eliminated the controversy. Therefore the CSA of the normal side of patients could be used as a control for diagnosis.
The novel multilevel side-to-side image contrast ultrasound technique proposed in this study provides a series of continuous data that reflected the trend of nerve shape and could accurately locate and identify the sites of the lesion those were the sites to be treated. The range of ultrasound examination in this study can cover all common sites of entrapment neuropathy and will not miss the rare lesion sites, especially in patients with CuTS and RNC who have more variable nerve compression sites. Typical cases are shown in Figures 4–6. The CSASR data of all levels were calculated to plot the curve, the apex of which represents the site with the most severe lesion. Moreover, the segment of the compressed nerve that is greater than the diagnostic threshold can be determined by CSASR and is treated accordingly.
During the treatment, the accuracy of the ultrasound examination proposed in this study for localization of the lesion segment was comparable to that by using X-ray or CT examination before bone and joint surgery, though X-ray or CT techniques [34] are in some detections and diagnoses. In future, the three-dimensional reconstruction technology would be helpful for aiding diagnosis of peripheral entrapment neuropathy [35]. In this study, the diagnostic accuracy rate in the 62 patients was 92.9%, and the accuracy rate for selecting the treatment method was 87.1%. This indicates the relatively high accuracy of this method for determining treatment sites. In previous surgical treatments, the diseased nerve segment was approximately localized by electrophysiological examination or segmentary ultrasound examination. This may cause deviation of the surgical incision site. Before surgical treatment, the site of the surgical incision can be strictly localized by ultrasound guidance to reduce the trauma caused by the operation itself and to shorten the operative time. When using this technique for steroid injection, the steroid agent can be accurately delivered to the diseased region to improve its efficiency and reduce the amount of steroid agent injected into the ineffective treatment area.
This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) project grant (No. 81671928) and Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Fellowship (No. 1158402).
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
| [1] |
Chambers S, Lobb A, Butler L, et al. (2007) Local, national and imported foods: A qualitative study. Appetite 49: 208–213. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2007.02.003
|
| [2] | Fortis M, Sartori A (2016) Food & Wine: Quality, Tradition and Innovation, In: Fortis M (Hrsg), The Pillars of the Italian Economy: Manufacturing, Food & Wine, Tourism, Springer International Publishing, Cham, S283–S317. |
| [3] |
Bullock DS, Desquilbet M (2002) The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation. Food Policy 27: 81–99. doi: 10.1016/S0306-9192(02)00004-0
|
| [4] | Smyth SJ, Phillips PW (2002) Product differentiation alternatives: identity preservation, segregation, and traceability. AgBioForum 5: 30–42. |
| [5] | Varacca A, Boccaletti S, Soregaroli C (2014) Economic aspects of segregation between GM and Non-GM crops in Italy. AgBioForum 17: 123–132. |
| [6] |
Varacca A, Soregaroli C (2016) Identity Preservation in International Feed Supply Chains. EuroChoices 15: 38–43. doi: 10.1111/1746-692X.12118
|
| [7] |
Van der Lans IA, Van Ittersum K, De Cicco A, et al. (2001) The role of the region of origin and EU certificates of origin in consumer evaluation of food products. Eur Rev Agric Econ 28: 451–477. doi: 10.1093/erae/28.4.451
|
| [8] | Krystallis A, Ness M (2005) Consumer preferences for quality foods from a South European perspective: A conjoint analysis implementation on Greek olive oil. Int Food Agribusiness Manage Rev 8: 62–91. |
| [9] |
Espejel J, Fandos C, Flavian C (2008) Consumer satisfaction: A key factor of consumer loyalty and buying intention of a PDO food product. Brit Food J 110: 865–881. doi: 10.1108/00070700810900585
|
| [10] |
Souza-Monteiro DMD, Lucas MRV (2001) Conjoint measurement of preferences for traditional cheeses in Lisbon. Brit Food J 103: 414–424. doi: 10.1108/00070700110400406
|
| [11] | Di Vita G, D'Amico M, La Via G, et al. (2014) Quality Perception of PDO extra-virgin Olive Oil: Which attributes most influence Italian consumers? Agr Econ Rev 14: 46–58. |
| [12] |
Resano H, Sanjuan AI, Albisu LM (2012) Consumers' response to the EU Quality policy allowing for heterogeneous preferences. Food Policy 37: 355–365. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.03.006
|
| [13] | Demartini E, Ricci EC, Mattavelli S, et al. (2018) Exploring Consumer Biased Evaluations: Halos Effects of Local Food and of Related Attributes. Int J Food Syst Dyn 9: 375–389. |
| [14] |
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Org Behav Hum Decis Proc 50: 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
|
| [15] | Ajzen I (2015) Consumer attitudes and behavior: The theory of planned behavior applied to food consumption decisions. REA Ital Rev Agr Econ 70: 121–138. |
| [16] |
Aprile MC, Caputo V, Nayga RM (2016) Consumers' Preferences and Attitudes Toward Local Food Products. J Food Prod Mark 22: 19–42. doi: 10.1080/10454446.2014.949990
|
| [17] |
Hobbs JE, Goddard E (2015) Consumers and trust. Food Policy 52: 71–74. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.10.017
|
| [18] | McFerran B, Dahl DW, Fitzsimons GJ (2009) I'll have what she's having: Effects of social influence and body type on the food choices of others. J Consum Res 36: 915–929. |
| [19] | Ricci EC, Banterle A (2018) The effects of EXPO MIlano 2015 on consumer food choices. Food Econ 20: 233–244. |
| [20] | Soregaroli C, Boccaletti S, Moro D (2003) Consumer's attitude towards labeled and unlabeled GM food products in Italy. Int Food Agribusiness Manage Rev 6: 111–121. |
| [21] |
Stranieri S, Ricci EC, Banterle A (2017) Convenience food with environmentally-sustainable attributes: A consumer perspective. Appetite 116: 11–20. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.04.015
|
| [22] |
Brucks M (1985) The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior. J Consum Res 12: 1–16. doi: 10.1086/209031
|
| [23] |
Chryssochoidis G, Krystallis A, Perreas P (2007) Ethnocentric beliefs and country-of-origin (COO) effect: Impact of country, product and product attributes on Greek consumers' evaluation of food products. Eur J Mark 41: 1518–1544. doi: 10.1108/03090560710821288
|
| [24] |
Cilingir Z, Basfirinci C (2014) The impact of consumer ethnocentrism, product involvement, and product knowledge on country of origin effects: An empirical analysis on Turkish consumers' product evaluation. J Int Consum Mark 26: 284–310. doi: 10.1080/08961530.2014.916189
|
| [25] |
Insch A, Jackson E (2014) Consumer understanding and use of country-of-origin in food choice. Brit Food J 116: 62–79. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-10-2011-0275
|
| [26] | Stranieri S, Baldi L, Banterle A (2010) Do nutrition claims matter to consumers? An empirical analysis considering European requirements. J Agri Econ 61: 15–33. |
| [27] |
Drichoutis AC, Lazaridis P, Nayga RM (2005) Nutrition knowledge and consumer use of nutritional food labels. Eur Rev Agr Econ 32: 93–118. doi: 10.1093/erae/jbi003
|
| [28] |
Del Giudice T, Stranieri S, Caracciolo F, et al (2018) Corporate Social Responsibility certifications influence consumer preferences and seafood market price. J Cleaner Prod 178: 526–533. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.276
|
| [29] |
Rao AR, Sieben WA (1992) The effect of prior knowledge on price acceptability and the type of information examined. J Consum Res 19: 256–270. doi: 10.1086/209300
|
| [30] | Javed A, Mukhtiyar B (2013) County-of-Origin and Purchase Intensions of Ethnocentric Customers. Int J Inf Bus Manage 5: 110. |
| [31] | Lin LY, Zhen JH (2005) Extrinsic product performance signaling, product knowledge and customer satisfaction: An integrated analysis–an example of notebook consumer behavior in Taipei city. Fu Jen Manage Rev 12: 65–91. |
| [32] |
Alba JW, Hutchinson JW (1987) Dimensions of Consumer Expertise. J Consum Res 13: 411–454. doi: 10.1086/209080
|
| [33] | Marks LJ, Olson JC (1981) Toward a cognitive structure conceptualization of product familiarity. ACR North American Advances. |
| [34] |
Pillai KG, Hofacker C (2007) Calibration of consumer knowledge of the web. Int J Res Mark 24: 254–267. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.02.001
|
| [35] |
Bryla P (2016) Organic food consumption in Poland: Motives and barriers. Appetite 105: 737–746. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.012
|
| [36] | Wilson N, Fearne A (1999) A link between modernity and tradition: the case of several regional food products. European Association of Agricultural Economists. |
| [37] |
Dodd TH, Laverie DA, Wilcox JF, et al. (2005) Differential Effects of Experience, Subjective Knowledge, and Objective Knowledge on Sources of Information used in Consumer Wine Purchasing. J Hospitality Tourism Res 29: 3–19. doi: 10.1177/1096348004267518
|
| [38] | Lombardi P, Caracciolo F, Cembalo L, et al. (2013) Country-of-origin labelling for the Italian early potato supply chain. New Medit 12: 37–49. |
| [39] |
Schnettler B, Miranda H, Lobos G, et al. (2011) A study of the relationship between degree of ethnocentrism and typologies of food purchase in supermarkets in central-southern Chile. Appetite 56: 704–712. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.02.007
|
| [40] |
Agrawal J, Kamakura WA (1999) Country of origin: A competitive advantage? Int J Res Mark 16: 255–267. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8116(99)00017-8
|
| [41] |
Backhaus C, Ahlert D, Woisetschläger DM, et al. (2008) The effects of country of origin and corporate reputation on initial trust: An experimental evaluation of the perception of Polish consumers. Int Mark Rev 25: 404–422. doi: 10.1108/02651330810887468
|
| [42] | Jimenez NH, San Martin S (2010) The role of country-of-origin, ethnocentrism and animosity in promoting consumer trust. The moderating role of familiarity. Int Bus Rev 19: 34–45. |
| [43] |
Rosenbloom A, Haefner JE (2009) Country-of-Origin Effects and Global Brand Trust: A First Look. J Global Mark 22: 267–278. doi: 10.1080/08911760903022432
|
| [44] |
Ricci EC, Banterle A, Stranieri S (2018) Trust to Go Green: An Exploration of Consumer Intentions for Eco-friendly Convenience Food. Ecol Econ 148: 54–65. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.02.010
|
| [45] |
Luomala HT (2007) Exploring the role of food origin as a source of meanings for consumers and as a determinant of consumers' actual food choices. J Bus Res 60: 122–129. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.10.010
|
| [46] |
Verlegh PW, Steenkamp JBE (1999) A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin research. J Econ Psychol 20: 521–546. doi: 10.1016/S0167-4870(99)00023-9
|
| [47] |
Feldmann C, Hamm U (2015) Consumers' perceptions and preferences for local food: A review. Food Qual Prefer 40: 152–164. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.09.014
|
| [48] |
Massa S, Testa S (2012) The role of ideology in brand strategy: The case of a food retail company in Italy. Int J Retail Distrib Manage 40: 109–127. doi: 10.1108/09590551211201865
|
| [49] | Moser R, Raffaelli R, Thilmany-McFadden D (2011) Consumer preferences for fruit and vegetables with credence-based attributes: A review. Int Food Agribusiness Manage Rev 14: 121–142. |
| [50] | Poole N, Martinez-Carrasco L (2007) Information and WTP: Fruit quality perceptions and consumer satisfaction. Paper prepared for presentation at the I Mediterranean Conference of Agro-Food Social Scientists. 103rd EAAE Seminar "Adding Value to the Agro-Food Supply Chain in the Future Euro Mediterranean Space". Barcelona, Spain. |
| [51] | Testa A (2015) ll made in Italy e i 60 miliardi persi in prodotti contraffatti. Internazionale 14: 49. |
| [52] |
Watson JJ, Wright K (2000) Consumer ethnocentrism and attitudes toward domestic and foreign products. Eur J Mark 34: 1149–1166. doi: 10.1108/03090560010342520
|
| [53] | Awdziej M, Tkaczyk J, Włodarek D (2016) Are elderly consumer more ethnocentric? Attitudes towards Polish and "foreign" food products. J Econ Manage 23: 91–107. |
| [54] |
Shimp TA, Sharma S (1987) Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE. J Mark Res 24: 280–289. doi: 10.1177/002224378702400304
|
| [55] | Del Giudice T, Caracciolo F, Cicia G, et al. (2012) Consumatori cinesi e cibo: Tra tradizione millenaria e influenze culturali occidentali. Econ Agro-aliment 15: 85–99. |
| [56] |
Dmitrovic T, Vida I, Reardon J (2009) Purchase behavior in favor of domestic products in the West Balkans. Int Bus Rev 18: 523–535. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.05.003
|
| [57] |
Reardon J, Miller C, Vida I, et al. (2005) The effects of ethnocentrism and economic development on the formation of brand and ad attitudes in transitional economies. Eur J Mark 39: 737–754. doi: 10.1108/03090560510601743
|
| [58] |
Javalgi RG, Khare VP, Gross AC, et al. (2005) An application of the consumer ethnocentrism model to French consumers. Int Bus Rev 14: 325–344. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2004.12.006
|
| [59] |
Lindquist JD, Vida I, Plank RE, et al. (2001) The modified CETSCALE: Validity tests in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. Int Bus Rev 10: 505–516. doi: 10.1016/S0969-5931(01)00030-0
|
| [60] |
Kavak B, Gumusluoglu L (2007) Segmenting Food Markets-The Role of Ethnocentrism and Lifestyle in Understanding Purchasing Intentions. Int J Mark Res 49: 71–94. doi: 10.1177/147078530704900108
|
| [61] |
Lewis KE, Grebitus C (2016) Why US consumers support country of origin labeling: Examining the impact of ethnocentrism and food safety. J Int Food Agribusiness Mark 28: 254–270. doi: 10.1080/08974438.2015.1110548
|
| [62] |
Kucukemiroglu O (1999) Market segmentation by using consumer lifestyle dimensions and ethnocentrism: An empirical study. Eur J Mark 33: 470–487. doi: 10.1108/03090569910262053
|
| [63] |
Kaynak E, Kara A (2002) Consumer perceptions of foreign products: An analysis of product-country images and ethnocentrism. Eur J Mark 36: 928–949. doi: 10.1108/03090560210430881
|
| [64] |
Klein JG, Ettenson R, Morris MD (1998) The Animosity Model of Foreign Product Purchase: An Empirical Test in the People's Republic of China. J Mark 62: 89–100. doi: 10.1177/002224299806200108
|
| [65] |
Pharr JM (2005) Synthesizing country-of-origin research from the last decade: Is the concept still salient in an era of global brands? J Mark Theory Pract 13: 34–45. doi: 10.1080/10696679.2005.11658557
|
| [66] | Hawkins DI, Best RJ, Coney KA (2004) Consumer behavior: Building marketing strategy (The Irwin/McGraw-Hill series in marketing). Mc-Graw-Hill Education, Maidenhead. |
| [67] |
Good LK, Huddleston P (1995) Ethnocentrism of Polish and Russian consumers: Are feelings and intentions related. Int Mark Rev 12: 35–48. doi: 10.1108/02651339510103047
|
| [68] |
Bannister JP, Saunders JA (1978) UK Consumers' Attitudes towards Imports: The Measurement of National Stereotype Image. Eur J Mark 12: 562–570. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000004982
|
| [69] | Dornoff RJ, Tankersley CB, White GP (1974) Consumers' perceptions of imports. Akron Bus Econ Rev 5: 26–29. |
| [70] |
Nielsen JA, Spence MT (1997) A Test of the Stability of the Cetscale, A Measure of Consumers' Ethnocentric Tendencies. J Mark Theory Pract 5: 68–76. doi: 10.1080/10696679.1997.11501781
|
| [71] | Saffu K, Walker JH (2005) An assessment of the consumer ethnocentric scale (CETSCALE) in an advanced and transitional country: The case of Canada and Russia. Int J Manage 22: 556. |
| [72] | Caruana A (1996) The effects of dogmatism and social class variables on consumer ethnocentrism in Malta. Mark Intell Plann 14: 39–44. |
| [73] | Klein JG, Ettensoe R (1999) Consumer animosity and consumer ethnocentrism: An analysis of unique antecedents. J Int Consum Mark 11: 5–24. |
| [74] |
Wall M, Heslop LA (1986) Consumer attitudes toward Canadian-made versus imported products. J Acad Mark Sci 14: 27–36. doi: 10.1007/BF02722154
|
| [75] |
Sharma S, Shimp TA, Shin J (1994) Consumer ethnocentrism: A test of antecedents and moderators. J Acad Mark Sci 23: 26–37. doi: 10.1177/0092070395231004
|
| [76] | Shimp TA (1984) Consumer ethnocentrism: The concept and a preliminary empirical test. ACR North American Advances. |
| [77] |
Ray JJ (1990) Racist extremism and normal prejudice: A comment on Grossarth-Maticek, Eysenck & Vetter. Pers Individ Differ 11: 647–648. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(90)90051-R
|
| [78] |
Tan CT, Farley JU (1987) The impact of cultural patterns on cognition and intention in Singapore. J Consum Res 13: 540–544. doi: 10.1086/209087
|
| [79] |
Han CM, Terpstra V (1988) Country-of-origin effects for uni-national and bi-national products. J Int Bus Stud 19: 235–255. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490379
|
| [80] |
Burton S, Howlett E, Tangari AH (2009) Food for Thought: How Will the Nutrition Labeling of Quick Service Restaurant Menu Items Influence Consumers' Product Evaluations, Purchase Intentions, and Choices? J Retail 85: 258–273. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2009.04.007
|
| [81] |
Raju PS, Lonial SC, Glynn Mangold W (1995) Differential effects of subjective knowledge, objective knowledge, and usage experience on decision making: An exploratory investigation. J Consum Psychol 4: 153–180. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp0402_04
|
| [82] |
Selnes F, Troye SV (1989) Buying expertise, information search, and problem solving. J Econ Psychol 10: 411–428. doi: 10.1016/0167-4870(89)90032-9
|
| [83] | Veale R, Quester P (2007) Consumer expertise: Measuring consumer objective knowledge. ANZMAC Conference, Otago University, New Zealand. |
| [84] |
Flynn LR, Goldsmith RE (1999) A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge. J Bus Res 46: 57–66. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00057-5
|
| [85] |
Ellis D, Thompson FM (2018) The effect of wine knowledge type on variety seeking behavior in wine purchasing. J Wine Res 29: 71–86. doi: 10.1080/09571264.2018.1471393
|
| [86] | Bundesministerium fur ernahrung und Landwirtschaft (2016) Deutschland, wie es isst-Die BMEL Ernährungsreport 2016. |
| [87] |
Shankarmahesh MN (2006) Consumer ethnocentrism: an integrative review of its antecedents and consequences. Int Mark Rev 23: 146–172. doi: 10.1108/02651330610660065
|
| 1. | Mansoureh Mamarabadi, John A. Morren, Steven J. Shook, Enhancing diagnostic accuracy using a side‐to‐side cross‐sectional area ratio for the diagnosis of unilateral ulnar mononeuropathy at the elbow, 2021, 0148-639X, 10.1002/mus.27178 | |
| 2. | Jonelle M. Thomas, Eric Y. Chang, Alice S. Ha, Roger J. Bartolotta, Matthew D. Bucknor, Jamie T. Caracciolo, Karen C. Chen, Jonathan Flug, Manickam Kumaravel, Noah M. Raizman, Andrew B. Ross, Matthew L. Silvis, Devaki Shilpa Surasi, Francesca D. Beaman, ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chronic Elbow Pain, 2022, 19, 15461440, S256, 10.1016/j.jacr.2022.09.022 | |
| 3. | James E. Gardner, Hannah Jones, Eric R. Wagner, Robert L. Bowers, Ultrasound Diagnosis of Upper Extremity Peripheral Entrapment Neuropathies, 2024, 12, 2329-9185, 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00099 | |
| 4. | Miao Yu, Wenquan Ding, Guoqing Shao, Miaozhong Li, Xiaoling Zhou, Linhai Liu, Xueyuan Li, Application of a nerve stereoscopic reconstruction technique based on ultrasonic images in the diagnosis of neuralgic amyotrophy, 2023, 14, 1664-042X, 10.3389/fphys.2023.1201275 | |
| 5. | Miao Yu, Wenquan Ding, Guoqing Shao, Miaozhong Li, Xiaoling Zhou, Linhai Liu, Xueyuan Li, Ultrasound‐Based Multi‐Planar Bilateral Comparisons as a Diagnostic and Treatment‐Definition Method for Unilateral Peripheral Nerve Entrapment, 2024, 43, 0278-4297, 1883, 10.1002/jum.16521 |
Elena Claire Ricci, Stefanella Stranieri, Cecilia Casetta, Claudio Soregaroli. Consumer preferences for Made in Italy food products: The role of ethnocentrism and product knowledge[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(1): 88-110. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.1.88
| Number of people(n) | Age (y)(mean±SD) | M/F (n) | Left/right (n) | Mean duration of disease (m)(mean±SD) | Conservative/surgical treatment (n) | |
| CTS | 15 | 52.2 ± 12.8 | 6/9 | 9/6 | 17.3 ± 10.2 | 4/11 |
| CuTS | 34 | 50.7 ± 14.3 | 28/6 | 16/18 | 14.9 ± 7.4 | 9/25 |
| RNC | 13 | 39.8 ± 18.5 | 10/3 | 8/5 | 1.9 ± 1.0 | 8/5 |
| Control group | 30 | 45.4 ± 15.1 | 17/13 | 30/30 | 0 | - |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Mean of maximal CSA (cm2) (mean ± S D) | Side-to-side CSA significant difference (P value) | Mean of maximal CSASR (mean ± SD) | ||
| Affected side | Normal side | |||
| CTS | 0.148 ± 0.046 | 0.105 ± 0.021 | = 0.001 | 1.53 ± 0.35 |
| CuTS | 0.168 ± 0.071 | 0.092 ± 0.028 | < 0.001 | 2.99 ± 0.99 |
| RNC | 0.093 ± 0.042 | 0.060 ± 0.018 | < 0.001 | 2.98 ± 1.40 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| MNCV | MNAP | SNCV | SNAP | ||
| Maximal CSASR of the median nerve | correlation coefficient | −0.610* | −0.059 | −0.659** | −0.745** |
| n | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | |
| P | 0.016 | 0.834 | 0.008 | 0.001 | |
| Maximal CSASR of the ulnar nerve | correlation coefficient | −0.515** | −0.433* | −0.651** | −0.636** |
| n | 34 | 34 | 32△ | 33△△ | |
| P | 0.002 | 0.011 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |
| Maximal CSASR of the radial nerve | correlation coefficient | −0.177 | −0.221 | 0.146 | −0.271 |
| n | 13 | 13 | 10△△△ | 13 | |
| P | 0.563 | 0.468 | 0.688 | 0.370 | |
| * The correlation is significant when the confidence coefficient is 0.05. **The correlation is significant when the confidence coefficient is 0.01. △ SNCV was not recorded during electrophysiological examination in 2 patients with CuTS. △△ SNAP was not recorded during electrophysiological examination in a patient with CuTS. △△△ SNCV was not recorded during electrophysiological examination in 3 patients with RNC. |
|||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Diagnostic Threshold | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | AUC | P | |
| CTS | 1.22 | 86.7 | 83.3 | 0.862 | < 0.001 |
| CuTS | 1.51 | 91.2 | 93.3 | 0.928 | < 0.001 |
| RNC | 1.50 | 100 | 86.7 | 0.982 | < 0.001 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Mean of maximal CSASR(mean ± SD) | Differences between conservative and surgical treatment groups(P) | Therapeutic threshold | Sensitivi-ty (%) | Specifici-ty (%) | AUC | P | ||
| Conservative treatment group | Surgical treatment group | |||||||
| CTS | 1.23 ± 0.23 | 1.64 ± 0.33 | 0.043 | 1.48 | 63.6 | 100 | 0.846 | 0.01 |
| CuTS | 1.48 ± 0.35 | 2.58 ± 0.99 | 0.003 | 1.67 | 100 | 79.4 | 0.95 | < 0.001 |
| RNC | 2.21 ± 0.55 | 4.17 ± 1.54 | 0.045 | 3.04 | 80 | 100 | 0.90 | 0.001 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Sites where maximal CSASR was obtained (%) | Ratio (%) | |
| CTS | Carpal tunnel entrance | 53.3 |
| CuTS | The site between 1 cm proximal to U2 and U5 | 94.1 |
| RNC | Scattered distribution | - |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Number of people(n) | Age (y)(mean±SD) | M/F (n) | Left/right (n) | Mean duration of disease (m)(mean±SD) | Conservative/surgical treatment (n) | |
| CTS | 15 | 52.2 ± 12.8 | 6/9 | 9/6 | 17.3 ± 10.2 | 4/11 |
| CuTS | 34 | 50.7 ± 14.3 | 28/6 | 16/18 | 14.9 ± 7.4 | 9/25 |
| RNC | 13 | 39.8 ± 18.5 | 10/3 | 8/5 | 1.9 ± 1.0 | 8/5 |
| Control group | 30 | 45.4 ± 15.1 | 17/13 | 30/30 | 0 | - |
| Mean of maximal CSA (cm2) (mean ± S D) | Side-to-side CSA significant difference (P value) | Mean of maximal CSASR (mean ± SD) | ||
| Affected side | Normal side | |||
| CTS | 0.148 ± 0.046 | 0.105 ± 0.021 | = 0.001 | 1.53 ± 0.35 |
| CuTS | 0.168 ± 0.071 | 0.092 ± 0.028 | < 0.001 | 2.99 ± 0.99 |
| RNC | 0.093 ± 0.042 | 0.060 ± 0.018 | < 0.001 | 2.98 ± 1.40 |
| MNCV | MNAP | SNCV | SNAP | ||
| Maximal CSASR of the median nerve | correlation coefficient | −0.610* | −0.059 | −0.659** | −0.745** |
| n | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | |
| P | 0.016 | 0.834 | 0.008 | 0.001 | |
| Maximal CSASR of the ulnar nerve | correlation coefficient | −0.515** | −0.433* | −0.651** | −0.636** |
| n | 34 | 34 | 32△ | 33△△ | |
| P | 0.002 | 0.011 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |
| Maximal CSASR of the radial nerve | correlation coefficient | −0.177 | −0.221 | 0.146 | −0.271 |
| n | 13 | 13 | 10△△△ | 13 | |
| P | 0.563 | 0.468 | 0.688 | 0.370 | |
| * The correlation is significant when the confidence coefficient is 0.05. **The correlation is significant when the confidence coefficient is 0.01. △ SNCV was not recorded during electrophysiological examination in 2 patients with CuTS. △△ SNAP was not recorded during electrophysiological examination in a patient with CuTS. △△△ SNCV was not recorded during electrophysiological examination in 3 patients with RNC. |
|||||
| Diagnostic Threshold | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | AUC | P | |
| CTS | 1.22 | 86.7 | 83.3 | 0.862 | < 0.001 |
| CuTS | 1.51 | 91.2 | 93.3 | 0.928 | < 0.001 |
| RNC | 1.50 | 100 | 86.7 | 0.982 | < 0.001 |
| Mean of maximal CSASR(mean ± SD) | Differences between conservative and surgical treatment groups(P) | Therapeutic threshold | Sensitivi-ty (%) | Specifici-ty (%) | AUC | P | ||
| Conservative treatment group | Surgical treatment group | |||||||
| CTS | 1.23 ± 0.23 | 1.64 ± 0.33 | 0.043 | 1.48 | 63.6 | 100 | 0.846 | 0.01 |
| CuTS | 1.48 ± 0.35 | 2.58 ± 0.99 | 0.003 | 1.67 | 100 | 79.4 | 0.95 | < 0.001 |
| RNC | 2.21 ± 0.55 | 4.17 ± 1.54 | 0.045 | 3.04 | 80 | 100 | 0.90 | 0.001 |
| Sites where maximal CSASR was obtained (%) | Ratio (%) | |
| CTS | Carpal tunnel entrance | 53.3 |
| CuTS | The site between 1 cm proximal to U2 and U5 | 94.1 |
| RNC | Scattered distribution | - |
