A randomized controlled pilot study to obtain the best estimate of the size of the effect of a thermoplastic resting splint on spasticity in the stroke-affected wrist and fingers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To obtain the best estimate of the size of the effect of a thermoplastic resting splint on spasticity in the stroke-affected upper limb. DESIGN: A randomized controlled intervention involving 14 adults affected by stroke,allocated to two groups. SETTING: Inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation departments. INTERVENTION: Following one week of baseline when neither group wore a splint, group 1 continued without a splint for week 2 and then wore a splint during week 3. Group 2 wore a splint during weeks 2 and 3. Both groups then wore a splint through weeks 4-7. MAIN MEASURES: A computerized torque apparatus was used to measure resistance at the wrist in newtons at every one-degree angle through the range of extension. Amount and rate of change in resistance was compared between the groups to obtain the best estimate of the size of the effect of splinting. RESULTS: Effect sizes were small and failed to reach the suggested smallest clinically worthwhile effect size for amount and rate of change in resistance in the short term. However, the average estimated size of the effect for rate of change with longer term splinting exceeded the smallest clinically worthwhile effect. CONCLUSIONS: These findings and the fact that confidence intervals overlapped the smallest clinically worthwhile size of the effect for amount and rate of change in both short and long term suggest that a study with a larger sample is warranted.
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 | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".