Therapeutic exercise for adults post-distal radius fracture: An overview of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Optimizing recovery after a distal radius fracture is a major concern. There continues to be discrepancies in findings on whether therapeutic exercise improves activity and participation by reducing limitations such as pain and range of motion after fracture. The main objective of this overview was to critically appraise the evidence to establish the effectiveness of therapeutic exercise to improve impairment for adults after a distal radius fracture. Methods An overview of systematic reviews was used, which summarizes a number of systematic reviews. PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched. Systematic reviews were included in this overview if the study population was adults after a distal radius fracture, and the intervention group was therapeutic exercise. A systematic review was excluded from this overview if it did not include randomized controlled trials, the full text was not published, or if they were scoping or narrative reviews. The outcomes evaluated were pain, function/disability, range of motion, and strength. Results Five systematic reviews were included in this overview, with between 7 and 26 randomized controlled trials included in the SRs. The overall quality of the reviews was low with two systematic reviews rated as low quality and three rated as critically low quality on the AMSTAR 2 assessment tool. Conclusion The quality of reviews was low, with high risk of bias. All reviews were inconclusive due to limitations in the number and quality of randomized controlled trials. Due to the low quality of evidence, it remains unclear what the effectiveness of exercise is to improve impairments after a distal radius fracture.
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 | 0.047 | 0.161 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".