Dynamic splints do not reduce contracture following distal radial fracture: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
QUESTION: Do dynamic splints reduce contracture following distal radial fracture? DESIGN: Assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Forty outpatients with contracture following distal radial fracture. INTERVENTION: The control group received routine care consisting of exercises and advice for 8 weeks. In addition to routine care, during the day the experimental group received a dynamic splint, which stretched the wrist into extension but allowed intermittent movement. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were passive wrist extension and the Patient Rated Hand Wrist Evaluation (PRHWE). The secondary outcomes were active wrist extension, flexion, radial deviation, and ulnar deviation, and the performance and satisfaction items of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). All outcomes were measured at commencement, at the end of 8 weeks of treatment, and at 12 weeks (ie, 1 month follow-up). RESULTS: The mean between-group difference for passive wrist extension and PRHWE at 8 weeks were 4 deg (95% CI -4 to 12) and -2 points (95% CI -8 to 4), respectively. The corresponding values at 12 week follow-up were 6 deg (95% CI 1 to 12) and 2 points (95% CI -5 to 9). There were no sufficiently important between-group differences for any of the secondary outcome measures at 8 or 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: It is unclear whether dynamic splints following distal radial fracture have therapeutic effects on passive wrist extension or PRHWE, but they clearly do not have any therapeutic effects on active wrist extension, flexion, radial or ulnar deviation, or on the performance or satisfaction items of the COPM. The ongoing use of dynamic splints following distal radial fracture is difficult to justify. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12608000309381.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".