A crossover trial of custom‐made and commercially available wrist splints in adults with inflammatory arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of 3 wrist splints (2 prefabricated commercial splints and 1 custom made) on perceived wrist pain, hand function, and perceived upper extremity function in adults with inflammatory arthritis. METHODS: Subjects (n = 45, mean age 49 years, mean disease duration 8.6 years) were randomly assigned to treatment order in a 3-phase crossover trial. Splints were worn for 4 weeks, separated by 1-week washouts. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, after each splint phase and washout period, and at 6 months' followup using a pain visual analog scale (VAS), the Arthritis Hand Function Test, and McMaster-Toronto Arthritis Patient Function Preference questionnaire. Data were analyzed with multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs), t-tests, and chi-square tests. RESULTS: There did not appear to be order or carryover effects. MANOVA indicated that wrist splints significantly reduced pain (P = 0.007). The custom leather splint was most effective in reducing pain, from 4.1 cm to 2.8 cm on the VAS (P = 0.001). All splints improved hand strength, and the commercial Rolyan splint provided significantly stronger grip than the Anatech commercial splint (P = 0.04). In contrast to previous studies, splints did not compromise dexterity. There were several significant differences among splints, depending on the outcome measure. Improvements were maintained at 6 months. CONCLUSION: After 4 weeks' use, wrist splints reduce pain, improve strength, and do not compromise dexterity. Similar improvements were achieved with the custom leather splint and Rolyan commercial splint, which were superior to the Anatech commercial splint.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".