MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939635608 · doi:10.1177/1558944719842199

A Controlled Trial Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Looped Thread Carpal Tunnel Release

2019· article· en· W2939635608 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueHand · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarpal tunnel syndromeMedicineWristMedian nerveCarpal tunnelUltrasoundSurgeryCarpal tunnel releasePatient satisfactionPhysical therapyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Open carpal tunnel release typically requires several weeks of recovery. A less invasive, ultrasound-guided percutaneous technique of releasing the transverse carpal ligament using a thread (thread carpal tunnel release [TCTR]) has been described. To date, its clinical effectiveness and safety have been evaluated exclusively by the group that developed the technique, using a single outcome measure without a control comparison. The objective of this study was to independently evaluate the safety and effectiveness of TCTR using multiple outcome measures and a control comparison. Methods: A convenience sample of 20 participants with refractory moderate or severe carpal tunnel syndrome underwent TCTR of their most symptomatic hand. Outcome measures included pre-TCTR and 1-, 3-, and 6-month post-TCTR Boston questionnaire; pre-, 3-, and 6-month post-TCTR monofilament sensibility, strength, ultrasound, and electrodiagnostic testing; weekly post-TCTR phone interviews for 1 month; and satisfaction surveys at 3 and 6 months post-TCTR. Results: No complications were reported. During the month post-TCTR, significant prompt improvements in hand pain and dysfunction occurred. The following significant improvements were demonstrated in the treated versus control hand: Boston Questionnaire scores, median nerve distal motor latency, transcarpal tunnel motor and sensory conduction velocities and sensory nerve action potential amplitudes. No significant differences in sensibility, pinch or grip strength, median nerve cross-sectional area (CSA) at the carpal tunnel inlet, or wrist: forearm median nerve CSA ratio were documented between TCTR and control sides. Satisfaction with the TCTR procedure was high (85%-90%). Conclusions: This study supports previous reports that the TCTR procedure is safe and effective.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.304 · 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