Electroacupuncture and splinting versus splinting alone to treat carpal tunnel syndrome: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of acupuncture for managing carpal tunnel syndrome is uncertain, particularly in patients already receiving conventional treatments (e.g., splinting). We aimed to assess the effects of electroacupuncture combined with splinting. METHODS: We conducted a randomized parallel-group assessor-blinded 2-arm trial on patients with clinically diagnosed primary carpal tunnel syndrome. The treatment group was offered 13 sessions of electroacupuncture over 17 weeks. The treatment and control groups both received continuous nocturnal wrist splinting. RESULTS: Of 181 participants randomly assigned to electroacupuncture combined with splinting (n = 90) or splinting alone (n = 91), 174 (96.1%) completed all follow-up. The electroacupuncture group showed greater improvements at 17 weeks in symptoms (primary outcome of Symptom Severity Scale score mean difference [MD] -0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.36 to -0.03), disability (Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire score MD -6.72, 95% CI -10.9 to -2.57), function (Functional Status Scale score MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.05), dexterity (time to complete blinded pick-up test MD -6.13 seconds, 95% CI -10.6 to -1.63) and maximal tip pinch strength (MD 1.17 lb, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.86). Differences between groups were small and clinically unimportant for reduction in pain (numerical rating scale -0.70, 95% CI -1.34 to -0.06), and not significant for sensation (first finger monofilament test -0.08 mm, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.06). INTERPRETATION: For patients with primary carpal tunnel syndrome, chronic mild to moderate symptoms and no indication for surgery, electroacupuncture produces small changes in symptoms, disability, function, dexterity and pinch strength when added to nocturnal splinting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Register no. ChiCTR-TRC-11001655 (www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=7890); subsequently deposited in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=ChiCTR-TRC-11001655).
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".