Comparison of Custom-made Versus Prefabricated Thumb Splinting for Carpometacarpal Arthrosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to compare the two types of orthoses, prefabricated soft splints versus short thermoplastic custom-made splints, that are the most commonly used for the management of first carpometacarpal (CMC) osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review in the literature based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We extracted the outcomes of disability scores, pain scores, grip and pinch strength and gathered the unified data accordingly. RESULTS: We included five randomized clinical trials with 230 patients with the mean age of 61 years and the mean follow-up of 8.1 weeks. The results of the pooled data demonstrated only a statistically significant difference in disability scores among splints in favor of the prefabricated splints. The rest of the outcome measures consisting of pain, grip strength, and pinch strength were not statistically different. CONCLUSION: According to our systematic review and meta-analysis, both thumb-based splints improved pain and function in the first CMC OA in a short-term follow-up, nevertheless the efficacy of prefabricated splints in abatement of disability scores was significantly higher than custom-made splints. In contrast, the other outcome measures including pain, grip and pinch strength were improved identically after wearing either of the splints. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
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 | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".