Repeated Mechanical Trauma to the Hands: The Use of Anti-Impaction Gloves for Treatment and Return to Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Repeated mechanical trauma to the hands can result in frictional hand dermatitis (FHD) and (in some cases) hyperkeratotic hand dermatitis (HHD), forms of irritant contact dermatitis. These conditions can be chronic and debilitating and are often refractory to many therapies. Most case reports of FHD describe avoidance of frictional trauma as a management solution. This is the first study to examine anti-impaction gloves as a treatment for FHD. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether anti-impaction gloves are effective in helping patients with FHD and HHD return to work. METHODS: We describe a small case series of a subset of patients who presented to our occupational contact dermatitis clinic between January 2004 and June 2008 with either HHD or FHD. Of the 11 patients evaluated, 9 had a diagnosis of FHD and 2 were diagnosed with HHD. They were all treated with anti-impaction gloves, tazarotene cream (Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA), and clobetasol propionate ointment (Taro Pharmaceuticals Inc., Brampton, Ontario, Canada) and were followed over the long term to determine the impact of treatment on their ability to maintain their jobs. All but one began use of anti-impaction gloves in the workplace. RESULTS: All patients with FHD were able to return to work with the use of anti-impaction gloves, topical treatments, and (in some cases) modified work duties. Neither of the two cases of HHD resolved with treatment or with discontinuation of work. CONCLUSION: Anti-impaction gloves are shown to aid in the return-to-work process for those with FHD but not for those with HHD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".