A study of the effect of desensitization on hyperaesthesia in the hand and upper extremity after injury or surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Hyperaesthesia is a common problem in hand rehabilitation. A desensitization programme has successfully been used in our occupational therapy department for patients with hyperaesthesia in the hand or upper extremity. Our objectives were to investigate self-perceived pain/discomfort at rest, with use or touch, size of sensitive skin area and occupational performance in daily occupations for patients with hyperaesthesia before and after a six-week desensitization programme. Methods Thirty-nine patients with pain/discomfort at or near scars from hand injury or surgery participated in the study. The patients were recruited consecutively to the study. They were instructed to massage the sensitive skin area three times a day with a piece of texture until numbness occurred (2–5 minutes). The textures were upgraded continuously. A study-specific questionnaire was developed including demographic data and questions concerning perceived pain/discomfort. Pain/discomfort was assessed with a visual analogue scale 0–100. The size of the sensitive skin area was assessed in mm 2 . Occupational performance was assessed with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Results The results showed statistically significant improvements ( P ≤ 0.001) in all areas after six weeks with reduced pain/discomfort at rest and with use or touch, a decreased size of the sensitive skin area and a higher occupational performance in daily occupations. Discussion The results indicate the importance of paying attention to sensory disturbances during rehabilitation. The cost for such a programme is low. Further research is needed to confirm the results in a larger sample using a control group, and in comparison with spontaneous healing and other treatment modalities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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 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".