24) Bessette L, Keller RB, Lew RA, Simmons BP, Fossel AH, Mooney N, Katz JN. Prognostic value of ...... 353) Vogt T, Mika A, Thomke F, Hopf HC. Evaluation of ...
Appendix A. AAOS Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Diagnosis Guideline Work Group Michael Warren Keith, MD (Chair) Professor of Orthopaedic and Biomedical Engineering Metro Health Medical Center Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH 44109-1900 Victoria Masear, MD (Co-Chair) Orthopaedic Specialists of Alabama 48 Medical Park E Dr Ste 255 Birmingham, AL 35235-3411 Peter C. Amadio, MD Mayo Clinic 200 1st St S W Rochester, MN 55902-3008 Michael Andary, MD (Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Representative) Michigan State University B401 W Fee Hall (PMR) East Lansing, MI 48824-1316 Richard W. Barth, MD (BOC Representative) 2021 K St Ste 400 Washington, DC 20006-1003 Kevin Chung, MD Associate Professor of Plastic Surgery University of Michigan Medical Center 1500 East Medical Center Drive 2130 Taubman Health Care Center Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0340 Kent Maupin, MD (Plastic Surgery Representative) 1001 Medical Park Dr SE Ste 211 Grand Rapids, MI 49546-3681 William C. Watters III, MD (Guidelines Oversight Committee Chair) Bone and Joint Clinic of Houston, P.A. 6624 Fannin #2600 Houston, TX 77030
62
Appendix B. Levels of evidence
Level I
Level II
Prognostic Studies
Diagnostic Studies
• High quality randomized trial with statistically significant difference or no statistically significant difference but narrow confidence intervals
• High quality prospective study (all patients were enrolled at the same point in their disease with ≥ 80% follow-up of enrolled patients)
• Testing of previously developed diagnostic criteria on consecutive patients (with universally applied “gold” standard)
• Systematic Review of Level I RCTs (and study results were homogenous)
• Systematic review of Level I studies
• Systematic review of Level I studies
• Lesser quality RCT (e.g. < 80% follow-up, no blinding, or improper randomization)
• Retrospective6 study
• Development of diagnostic criteria on consecutive patients (with universally applied reference “gold” standard)
• Sensible costs and alternatives; values obtained from limited studies; with multiway sensitivity analyses
• Systematic review of Level II studies
• Systematic review of Level II studies
• Study of nonconsecutive patients; without consistently applied reference “gold” standard
• Analyses based on limited alternatives and costs; and poor estimates
• Prospective comparative study • Systematic review of Level II studies or Level 1 studies with inconsistent results • Case control study
Level III
Economic & Decision Analyses
Therapeutic Studies
• Untreated controls from an RCT • Lesser quality prospective study (e.g. patients enrolled at different points in their disease or
