MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900517687 · doi:10.1177/0269215518811907

The effect of early intervention of mirror visual feedback on pain, disability and motor function following hand reconstructive surgery: a randomized clinical trial

2018· article· en· W2900517687 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mahsa Abolfazli, Laleh Lajevardi, Leila Mirzaei, Hosein Ali Abdorazaghi, Akram Azad, Ghorban Taghizadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Rehabilitation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNerve Injury and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyRange of motionRehabilitationDashRandomized controlled trialGrip strengthPhysical medicine and rehabilitationHand strengthSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.379 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical RehabilitationSame topicNerve Injury and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207