A randomized single blind crossover trial comparing leather and commercial wrist splints for treating chronic wrist pain in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the effectiveness of a custom-made leather wrist splint (LS) with a commercially available fabric splint (FS) in adults with chronic wrist pain. METHODS: Participants (N = 25, mean age = 54) were randomly assigned to treatment order in a 2-phase crossover trial. Splints were worn for 2 weeks, separated by a one-week washout period. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and after each splint phase using the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN), the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Jamar dynamometer by an observer blinded to treatment allocation. RESULTS: Both styles of wrist splint significantly reduced pain (effect size LS 0.79, FS 0.43), improved hand function and increased grip strength compared to baseline (all p < 0.05) with no increase in wrist stiffness. There was a consistent trend for the LS to be superior to the FS but this was statistically significant only for patient perceived occupational performance (p = 0.008) and satisfaction (p = 0.015). Lastly, 72% of patients preferred the custom-made leather splint compared to the commercially available splint. CONCLUSION: Leather wrist splints were superior to a commercially available fabric splint for the short-term relief of pain and dysfunction.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".