MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290545230 · doi:10.1186/s12998-016-0089-8

Multimodal care for the management of musculoskeletal disorders of the elbow, forearm, wrist and hand: a systematic review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration

2016· review· en· W2290545230 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Deborah Sutton, Douglas P. Gross, Pierre Côté, Kristi Randhawa, Hainan Yu, Jessica J. Wong, Paula Stern, Sharanya Varatharajan, Danielle Southerst, Heather M. Shearer, Maja Stupar, Rachel Goldgrub, Gabrielle van der Velde, Margareta Nordin, Linda Carroll, Anne Taylor‐Vaisey

Bibliographic record

VenueChiropractic & Manual Therapies · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsToronto Public HealthUniversity of AlbertaCanadian Memorial Chiropractic CollegeUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
FundersCanada Research ChairsFinancial Services CommissionUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialCINAHLEpicondylitisEvidence-based medicineMEDLINEPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSystematic reviewPopulationForearmCochrane LibraryPsychological interventionWristPsycINFOElbowAlternative medicineSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal disorders of the elbow, forearm, wrist and hand are associated with pain, functional impairment and decreased productivity in the general population. Combining several interventions in a multimodal program of care is reflective of current clinical practice; however there is limited evidence to support its effectiveness. The purpose of our review was to investigate the effectiveness of multimodal care for the management of musculoskeletal disorders of the elbow, forearm, wrist and hand on self-rated recovery, functional recovery, or clinical outcomes in adults or children. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature and best evidence synthesis. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1990 to March 2015. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies were eligible. Random pairs of independent reviewers screened studies for relevance and critically appraised relevant studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. Studies with a low risk of bias were synthesized following best evidence synthesis principles. RESULTS: We screened 5989 articles, and critically appraised eleven articles. Of those, seven had a low risk of bias; one addressed carpal tunnel syndrome and six addressed lateral epicondylitis. Our search did not identify any low risk of bias studies examining the effectiveness of multimodal care for the management of other musculoskeletal disorders of the elbow, forearm, wrist or hand. The evidence suggests that multimodal care for the management of lateral epicondylitis may include education, exercise (strengthening, stretching, occupational exercise), manual therapy (manipulation) and soft tissue therapy (massage). The evidence does not support the use of multimodal care for the management of carpal tunnel syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence on the effectiveness of multimodal care for musculoskeletal disorders of the elbow, forearm, wrist and hand is limited. The available evidence suggests that there may be a role for multimodal care in the management of patients with persistent lateral epicondylitis. Future research is needed to examine the effectiveness of multimodal care and guide clinical practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014009093.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.013
Bibliometrics0.0210.026
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChiropractic & Manual TherapiesSame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207