Diagnosis of Finger Flexor Pulley Injury in Rock Climbers: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Closed injury to the finger flexor pulley system is found frequently in rock climbers. There are no evidence-based published guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of these injuries. OBJECTIVES: THE PRESENT SYSTEMATIC REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: what are the most commonly recommended diagnostic criteria for finger flexor pulley injury in rock climbers; and, based on the available evidence, what is the best diagnostic test for these injuries? METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched using specific key terms, with limits set for language and date. Two reviewers independently identified potentially relevant titles based on inclusion criteria. Inter-reviewer variability was assessed using the Kappa statistic. The scientific quality of articles was assessed using validated scales. RESULTS: Of the 93 articles identified, 29 were included in the present analysis. The inter-rater agreement for selection of potentially relevant titles was 88% (kappa=0.74). The most commonly cited diagnostic criterion for closed finger pulley injury was clinical bow-stringing of the flexor tendons over the volar aspect of the proximal interphalangeal joint. However, the best study of diagnostic accuracy for these injuries supports the use of dynamic ultrasound. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic ultrasound is recommended for the diagnosis of closed finger pulley injuries in rock climbers. The prevailing notion that these injuries can be diagnosed by testing for clinical bowstringing is not supported by evidence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".