A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Endoscopic and Open Carpal Tunnel Decompression
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Controversy exists regarding the benefit of endoscopic carpal tunnel release versus open carpal tunnel release in terms of grip/pinch strength, scar tenderness, pain, return to work, reversible/irreversible nerve damage, and adverse effects. Although a number of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews have been published on the subject, to date, no large definitive randomized controlled trial or meta-analysis has been performed comparing endoscopic to open carpal tunnel release. This meta-analysis was undertaken to address the effectiveness of endoscopic carpal tunnel release relative to open carpal tunnel release. Key outcome measures from 13 randomized controlled trials were extracted and statistically combined. Heterogeneity was observed in three of the outcomes (i.e., grip strength, pain, and return to work), but the causes of heterogeneity could not be explained because of insufficient detail in the reported studies. Using the Jadad et al. scale, nine of 13 studies were of low methodologic quality. The effect sizes were compared between the studies that were rated as high quality and the studies that were rated as low quality on the Jadad et al. scale. Similarly, the studies that were rated as high quality on the Gerritsen et al. scale were compared with those that were rated as low quality. No clinically significant difference in effect sizes was apparent between studies of high and low methodologic quality. This meta-analysis supports the conclusion that endoscopic carpal tunnel release is favored over the open carpal tunnel release in terms of a reduction in scar tenderness and increase in grip and pinch strength at a 12-week follow-up. With regard to symptom relief and return to work, the data are inconclusive. Irreversible nerve damage is uncommon in either technique; however, there is an increased susceptibility to reversible nerve injury that is three times as likely to occur with endoscopic carpal tunnel release than with open carpal tunnel release.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,051 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,082 | 0,018 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle