Radial nerve mobilisation had bilateral sensory effects in people with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: a randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
QUESTION: In people with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis, does radial nerve mobilisation to the affected hand reduce pressure pain sensitivity in the contralateral hand? DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a randomised trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding, and intention-to-treat analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty people with thumb CMC osteoarthritis in the dominant hand aged 70-90 years. INTERVENTIONS: The experimental group received sliding mobilisation of the radial nerve and the control group received a non-therapeutic dose of intermittent ultrasound, on the affected side for six sessions over four weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: On the contralateral side, pressure pain thresholds at the lateral epicondyle, thumb CMC joint, tubercle of the scaphoid bone, and hamate bone were assessed before and after the intervention with follow-up at 1 and 2 months. RESULTS: No important baseline differences were noted between groups. At the end of the intervention period, the experimental group had significantly a higher (ie, better) pressure pain threshold than the control group at the lateral epicondyle by 1.5kg/cm(2) (95% CI 0.2 to 2.2), CMC joint by 1.2kg/cm(2) (95% CI 0.5 to 2.0), scaphoid bone by 1.0kg/cm(2) (95% CI 0.2 to 1.8) and hamate bone by 1.9kg/cm(2) (95% CI 1.0 to 2.7). Although mean values in the experimental group remained better than the control group at all sites at both follow-up assessments, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Radial nerve gliding applied to the symptomatic hand induced hypoalgesic effects on the contralateral hand in people with CMC osteoarthritis, suggesting bilateral hypoalgesic effects of the intervention.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".