The effect of early intervention of mirror visual feedback on pain, disability and motor function following hand reconstructive surgery: a randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:: To determine the effect of mirror visual feedback (MVF) on disability, pain, and motor function on patients who underwent hand reconstructive surgery. DESIGN:: Randomized, single-blinded controlled trial. SETTING:: Rehabilitation center. SUBJECTS:: A total of 40 patients who were randomly assigned into the intervention group ( n = 20) and control group ( n = 20) participated in this study. INTERVENTIONS:: The rehabilitation sessions took place twice a week for eight weeks. The control group received traditional rehabilitation for 75 minutes. While the intervention group performed MVF and traditional rehabilitation for 30 and 45 minutes, respectively. MEASURES:: Pain and disability of the hand were assessed with McGill pain questionnaire and Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores. The range of joint motion was evaluated by Goniometer, and the strength of grip and pinch was evaluated by Dynamometer and Pinch gauge and dexterity evaluated by Minnesota Manual Muscle test. RESULTS:: The results indicated that both traditional and MVF methods induced significant decreasing pain (Pain Rate Index: F = 68.48, P = 0.000; Number of Word Count: F = 70.96, P = 0.000), disability ( F = 50.08, P = 0.000) and increasing dexterity (placing test: F = 28.73, P = 0.000), and range of motion ( F = 33.16, P = 0.000). The results also showed that the positive effect of MVF on pain, disability, dexterity, and range of motion was significantly greater than that of controls ( P < 0.05), but there was no significant result in grip and lateral pinch strength between the intervention and control group ( P > 0.05). CONCLUSION:: MVF, in conjunction with traditional rehabilitation programs, may lead to greater improvements in pain, disability, placing dexterity, and range of motion. But it seems not to be effective on pinch and grip power and turning dexterity.
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 | 0.049 | 0.174 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".