The Effectiveness of Exercise for the Management of Musculoskeletal Disorders and Injuries of the Elbow, Forearm, Wrist, and Hand: A Systematic Review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of exercise compared to other interventions, placebo/sham intervention, or no intervention in improving self-rated recovery, functional recovery, clinical, and/or administrative outcomes in individuals with musculoskeletal disorders and injuries of the elbow, forearm, wrist, and hand. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1990 to 2015. Paired reviewers independently screened studies for relevance and assessed the risk of bias using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. We synthesized the evidence using the best evidence synthesis methodology. RESULTS: We identified 5 studies with a low risk of bias. Our review suggests that, for patients with persistent lateral epicondylitis, (1) adding concentric or eccentric strengthening exercises to home stretching exercises provides no additional benefits; (2) a home program of either eccentric or concentric strengthening exercises leads to similar outcomes; (3) home wrist extensor strengthening exercises lead to greater short-term improvements in pain reduction compared to "wait and see"; and (4) clinic-based, supervised exercise may be more beneficial than home exercises with minimal improvements in pain and function. For hand pain of variable duration, supervised progressive strength training added to advice to continue normal physical activity provides no additional benefits. CONCLUSION: The relative effectiveness of stretching vs strengthening for the wrist extensors remains unknown for the management of persistent lateral epicondylitis. The current evidence shows that the addition of supervised progressive strength training does not provide further benefits over advice to continue normal physical activity for hand pain of variable duration.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".