Poster 519 Clinical Outcomes and Methodological Quality of Mirror Therapy Interventions to Reduce Phantom Limb Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
E. Diebolt, No Disclosures: I Have No Relevant Financial Relationships to Disclose. To critically appraise and synthesize methodological quality and clinical outcome data from those studies focusing on the use of mirror therapy as a treatment for patients with phantom limb pain after surgical amputation. A systematic review and rating of methodological quality according to American Academy of Neurology standards. Healthcare System. Data sources: Using a rigorous computerized search strategy, we searched and selected original research articles obtained from the following databases: Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), CIHNAL, Clinical Trials, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, NARIC, OVID, PEDro, PsychINFO, PubMed, NIH RePORTER, OT Seeker, Dissertation Abstracts International, SPORTDiscus, and ISI Citation Databases, from inception to January 2014. Data Extraction: One reviewer extracted the data into a standardized form, assessed the risk of bias within each study, graded the strength of evidence, and recorded clinical applicability. The strength of evidence was independently verified by a second reviewer. Methodological quality and results of clinical studies meeting the inclusion criteria Three heterogeneous randomized controlled trials, one pilot study, two case series, and three case reports contributed evidence of limited validity (n=173 patients with phantom limb pain; age = 20 to 83 years, mirror therapy duration 28 to 120 days). One study described subject compliance/dropout, no studies masked assessors, two described adverse events, three had patient follow-up, and no studies were intention-to-treat. Clinical improvements were noted in 9/9 studies using neuropsychological outcome measures (n=6, Visual Analogue Scale; n=2, Numeric Pain Rating Scale; n=1, McGill Pain Questionnaire; n=1, Brief Pain Inventory; n=1, patient feedback). Physiologic measures were not used. Results are based on studies of limited methodological quality. More research is warranted.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".