MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888523480 · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1667047

Clinical Outcomes of Nerve Transfers in Peroneal Nerve Palsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018· review· en· W2888523480 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reconstructive Microsurgery · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNerve Injury and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOttawa Hospital Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisSurgeryMEDLINEPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Given the unsatisfactory outcomes with traditional treatments, there is growing interest in nerve transfers to reestablish ankle dorsiflexion in peroneal nerve palsy. The objective of this work was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the primary literature to assess the effectiveness of nerve transfer surgery in restoring ankle dorsiflexion in patients with peroneal nerve palsy. Methods Methodology was registered with PROSPERO, and PRISMA guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched. English studies investigating outcomes of nerve transfers in peroneal nerve palsy were included. Two reviewers completed screening and extraction. Methodological quality was evaluated with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results Literature search identified 108 unique articles. Following screening, 14 full-text articles were reviewed. Four retrospective case series met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Overall, 41 patients underwent nerve transfer for peroneal nerve palsy. The mean age of the patients was 36.1 years, mean time to surgery was 6.3 months, and the mean follow-up period was 19.0 months. Donor nerve was either tibial (n = 36) or superficial peroneal branches/fascicles (n = 5). Recipient nerve was either deep peroneal (n = 24) or tibialis anterior branch (n = 17). Postoperative ankle dorsiflexion strength demonstrated a bimodal distribution with a mean Medical Research Council of 2.1. There were no significant differences in dorsiflexion strength between injury sites (p = 0.491), injury mechanisms (p = 0.125), donor (p = 0.066), or recipient nerves (p = 0.496). There were no significant correlations between dorsiflexion strength and patient age (p = 0.094) or time to surgery (p = 0.493). Conclusions There is variability in dorsiflexion strength following nerve transfer in peroneal nerve palsy, whereby there appear to be responders and non-responders. Further studies are needed to better define appropriate patient selection and the role of nerve transfers in the management of peroneal nerve palsy.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.014
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it