MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2311259334 · doi:10.1177/0269215515605356

Sensory dynamic orthoses in mild to moderate upper limb tremor in multiple sclerosis: a mixed methods feasibility study

2015· article· en· W2311259334 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linda Miller, Frederike van Wijck, Lori Lamont, Jenny Preston, Mario Hair

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Rehabilitation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterquartile rangeRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationUpper limbPlaceboRehabilitationPopulationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility of conducting a Phase III randomized controlled trial evaluating sensory dynamic orthoses for upper limb tremor in multiple sclerosis. DESIGN: Mixed methods: double blind randomized placebo controlled pilot study and semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Rehabilitation centre. SUBJECTS: A total of 21 people with multiple sclerosis with upper limb tremor. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received a sensory dynamic orthosis sleeve or a non-compressive sleeve (placebo) that they wore eight hours a day, for nine weeks. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes were completed at baseline and nine weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Fahn-Tolosa-Marin (FAHN) Tremor Rating Scale. Secondary outcome measures included the: Action Research Arm Test, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, Psychological Impact of Assistive Device Scale and the Nine-hole Peg Test. RESULTS: Both sleeves were acceptable, although achieving a good fit was an issue. There were no significant between-group differences for the primary outcome measure. The median ± interquartile range change scores were 0.5 ±6.5 and 2 ±8 for the placebo and treatment group, respectively. The median ± interquartile range Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (performance subscale) demonstrated significant improvements ( p = 0.01) for the placebo group (1.1 ±1.65) compared with the treatment group (0 ±1.2). There was no between-group differences in the satisfaction subscale. The primary outcome measure was sensitive to detect change; however the Action Research Arm Test was not responsive in this study population. CONCLUSION: Undertaking an randomized controlled trial would be feasible and a minimum of 200 participants would be needed for a fully powered, definitive randomized controlled trial.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.275
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.200 · 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.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical RehabilitationSame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207