The effect of two different orthoses on pain, hand function, patient satisfaction and preference in patients with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the Push Ortho Thumb Brace CMC and a custom-made orthosis in the treatment of patients with primary osteoarthritis of the carpometacarpal joint of the thumb. Our outcome measures were pain scores, tests of hand function, patient satisfaction and patient preference. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicentre crossover randomised controlled trial was conducted which included 63 patients (44 women) with primary osteoarthritis of the carpometacarpal joint of the thumb. Of these, 59 patients with a mean age of 60.1 years (standard deviation 8.2), completed the study. Patients used both orthoses for two weeks with a two-week washout period in-between. Pain was measured on a 10-cm visual analogue scale. Hand function was assessed using the Jebsen Taylor Hand Function test, Nine Hole Peg Test, key grip, pinch grip and Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis. Patient preference was assessed using the Dutch version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology score. RESULTS: Both orthoses resulted in a minor reduction in pain scores without significant difference between the two orthoses. The Push Ortho Thumb Brace CMC interfered less with key grip (p < 0.001) and the Nine Hole Peg Test (p < 0.001) than the custom-made orthosis. The Push Ortho Thumb Brace CMC had a higher patient satisfaction (p < 0.001) and most patients preferred this orthosis for future use. CONCLUSION: When considering an orthosis for osteoarthritis of the carpometacarpal joint of the thumb, patients may prefer the Push Ortho Thumb Brace CMC. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:237-44.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".