Review: early mobilisation is better than cast immobilisation for injured limbs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nash CE, Mickan SM, Del Mar CB, et al. Resting injured limbs delays recovery: a systematic review. J Fam Pract 2004;53:706–12. [OpenUrl][1][PubMed][2][Web of Science][3] Q In patients with acute limb injuries, is early mobilisation better than rest (cast immobilisation)? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★☆☆ Emergency medicine ★★★★★☆☆ ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Data sources: Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline (1966–2002), EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Web of Science, and references of retrieved studies. ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in any language that compared early mobilisation with cast immobilisation in patients with acute limb injuries, had ⩾80% follow up, and included patients who were not predominantly young children. Quality assessment of the individual studies was based on the criteria of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group (maximum score 18). ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Outcomes: patient centred outcomes (pain and swelling and satisfaction), functional outcomes (range of motion, days lost from work, and return to sport), and complications. 49 RCTs met the selection criteria. 16 trials were considered to be of … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DThe%2BJournal%2Bof%2Bfamily%2Bpractice%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BFam%2BPract%26rft.aulast%253DNash%26rft.auinit1%253DC.%2BE.%26rft.volume%253D53%26rft.issue%253D9%26rft.spage%253D706%26rft.epage%253D712%26rft.atitle%253DResting%2Binjured%2Blimbs%2Bdelays%2Brecovery%253A%2Ba%2Bsystematic%2Breview.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15353159%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15353159&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F10%2F4%2F118.atom [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000224000300009&link_type=ISI [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".