In this task, you are given a passage which has a question and the context. You have to generate an answer to the question based on the information present in the context.

Q: Context: Provocative clinical tests are often performed in the diagnosis of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE) although the evidence for the usefulness of these tests is limited. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of provocative clinical tests in the diagnosis of UNE in a relevant spectrum of patients and controls.', "A prospective cohort study was performed in consecutive patients clinically suspected of having UNE. All patients underwent a neurological examination and four commonly used provocative clinical tests (Tinel's test, flexion compression test, palpating for local ulnar nerve tenderness and nerve thickening). Subsequently, in all patients a reference standard test comprising electrophysiological studies and neurosonography was independently assessed.", "192 eligible patients completed the study protocol. UNE was diagnosed in 137 and an alternative diagnosis was made in 55 patients. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were as follows: Tinel's test 62%, 53%, 77% and 30%; flexion compression test 61%, 40%, 72% and 29%; palpating for nerve thickening 28%, 87%, 84% and 33%; and palpating for nerve tenderness 32%, 80%, 80% and 32%. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curves showed that the added value of one or more provocative tests over routine clinical examination is minimal.\Question: Is the diagnostic value of provocative clinical tests in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow marginal?

A: The diagnostic value of provocative clinical tests in UNE is poor.
****
Q: Context: For patients with small bowel obstruction (SBO), who do not have strangulation obstruction or other contraindications, long tube decompression has been successful in 75% in two studies. In a 1995 prospective randomized study, comparing nasogastric suction (short tube) with long tube decompression, the short tube was successful in 51% and the long tube was successful in 75%. Using upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, a long tube can be advanced into the jejunum in 20 minutes, so the delay in function has been eliminated.', 'There were 35 patients with 37 episodes of SBO. From 1983 to 1988, three tubes then available were advanced endoscopically into the jejunum in 17 patients. From 1989 to 2002, an improved tube designed for endoscopic placement was used in 20 patients.', 'From 1983 to 1988 using three tubes, long tube decompression was successful in 12 of 17 (70%); from 1989 to 2002 with the improved tube, decompression was successful in 18 of 20 (90%).\Question: Is long tube decompression successful in 90 % of patients with adhesive small bowel obstruction?

A: For patients with SBO due to adhesions, a trial with long tube decompression for 48 to 72 hours is recommended. For those who fail a trial with the long tube, laparotomy with enterolysis or bowel resection is indicated. If the operative findings indicate a high risk for recurrent obstruction, then long tube splinting of the small bowel should be considered.
****
Q: Context: Although the rule of 3 is recommended to minimize the risk of perforation when esophageal dilation is performed using bougie dilators, there are no data to validate its use. Our aim was to investigate the association between the rule of 3 and adverse events (AEs) in esophageal dilation.', 'A retrospective chart review in patients who underwent esophageal bougie or balloon dilation between December 1991 and February 2013 at a tertiary hospital was performed. Data collection included patient demographics, stricture and procedural characteristics, AEs, and follow-up. Univariate logistic regression models were used to assess the risk of AEs and perforations.', 'A total of 297 patients (median age, 63 years; 60% men) underwent 2216 esophageal bougie or balloon dilations. Major AEs occurred in 22 (1%) dilation sessions, including 11 (0.5%) perforations, 4 (0.2%) fistulas, 3\xa0(0.1%) hospitalizations for pain management, 2 (0.09%) clinically significant hemorrhages, 1 (0.04%) fever, and 1 (0.04%) tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis leak. Mean duration of treatment was 43.2 months (standard deviation, 47.7 months). Most strictures were benign (n\xa0= 275; 93%) and complex in nature (n\xa0= 198; 67%). Non-adherence to the rule of 3 occurred in 190 (13%) dilations with bougie dilators. Non-adherence was not associated with a higher rate of major AEs (1/190, 0.5% vs 15/953, 1.6%; P\xa0= .18) and perforations (0/190, 0% vs 7/952, 0.7%; P\xa0= .18). Gender, complex strictures, location of the stricture, type of dilator, and additional interventions were also not associated with major AEs or perforations. However, malignant strictures were associated with an increased risk of major AEs (odds ratio, 3.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-12.0) and perforations (odds ratio, 8.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-31.9).\Question: Does non-adherence to the rule of 3 increase the risk of adverse events in esophageal dilation?

A:
Non-adherence to the rule of 3 does not appear to increase the risk of AEs, particularly perforation, after esophageal dilation using bougie dilators. Caution is needed with the dilation of malignant strictures, as there is an increased risk of perforations and AEs. However, large prospective studies are needed to verify the results of this study.
****