Outcomes in carpal tunnel syndrome: symptom severity, conservative management and progression to surgery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the relationship between severity of symptoms and success of nonoperative and operative treatment in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). METHODS: An observational cohort study regarding the management of CTS was conducted. Thirty patients referred to a tertiary hand centre with a diagnosis of CTS were prospectively followed. Twenty-five of the patients (47 affected hands) were available for long-term follow up to determine management outcomes. Self-report symptoms and physical impairments were assessed and documented at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks using the CTS Severity Score (SSS), the Disability-Shoulder, Arm and Hand Score (DASH), and the Levine Functional Score. Longer-term follow-up was conducted to identify status on outcome measures and whether patients proceeded to surgery. RESULTS: Those who proceeded to surgery (n = 27/47 hands) had higher initial CTS SSS and DASH scores and also maintained higher scores compared to those who improved with conservative management (p < 0.05). Improvements occurred in the SSS (P < 0.0001), Functional Score (P < 0.001), and DASH score (P < 0.05) following surgery in the patients resistant to conservative management. Recovery of grip and dexterity was less satisfactory. DISCUSSION: This study suggests that the SSS is useful in the triage of patients on surgical wait-lists as patients with high initial scores or failure to change in short-term follow-up are likely to proceed to surgical release. Despite prolonged symptoms and previous treatment, patients with lower SSS scores had moderate success with a second trial of conservative management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".