Reporting of Allocation Method and Statistical Analyses That Deal with Bilaterally Affected Wrists in Clinical Trials for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors aimed to describe how often the allocation method and the statistical analyses that deal with bilateral involvement are reported in clinical trials for carpal tunnel syndrome and to determine whether reporting has improved over time. Forty-two trials identified from recently published systematic reviews were assessed. Information about allocation method and statistical analyses was obtained from published reports and trialists. Only 15 trialists (36%) reported the method of random sequence generation used, and 6 trialists (14%) reported the method of allocation concealment used. Of 25 trials including participants with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, 17 (68%) reported the method used to allocate the wrists, whereas only 1 (4%) reported using a statistical analysis that appropriately dealt with bilateral involvement. There was no clear trend of improved reporting over time. Interventions are needed to improve reporting quality and statistical analyses of these trials so that these can provide more reliable evidence to inform clinical practice.
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 | 0.688 | 0.910 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".