MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2219226425 · doi:10.1093/ptj/83.7.648

The Use of Casts in the Management of Joint Mobility and Hypertonia Following Brain Injury in Adults: A Systematic Review

2003· review· en· W2219226425 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Mortenson, Janice J. Eng

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypertoniaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRigourAcquired brain injuryMedicineRehabilitationRange of motionCastingJoint (building)Physical therapyPsychologyEngineeringPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many controversies exist regarding the practicality, the theoretical premises, and the supporting evidence for the use of casts in the management of joint hypomobility and hypertonia (ie, increase in joint resistance to passive movement resulting from hyperactivity of the stretch reflex and/or changes in the muscles and connective tissues). The purpose of this review was to determine current best practice for the use of casting in the rehabilitation of adults with brain injury. A systematic review was undertaken to find studies that quantified the effectiveness of casting in adults with brain injury. Thirteen articles that presented experimental or case report evidence on casting were analyzed using Sackett's levels of evidence and were examined for scientific rigor. A grade B recommendation is given for the use of casting to increase passive range of motion or to prevent its loss, and implications for further research are provided.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207