Systematic Review and Expert Consensus on the Use of Orthoses (Splints and Casts) with Adults and Children after Burn Injury to Determine Practice Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this review was to systematically evaluate the available literature addressing the use of orthoses (splints and casts) with adult and pediatric burn survivors and determine whether practice guidelines could be proposed. This review provides evidence-based recommendations specifically for rehabilitation professionals who are responsible for burn survivor rehabilitation. A summary recommendation was made after the literature was retrieved using a systematic review and critical appraisal by multiple authors. The level of evidence of the literature was determined in accordance with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine criteria. Due to the low level of evidence in the available literature, only one practice guideline could be recommended: orthotic use should be considered as a treatment choice for improving range of motion or reducing contracture in adults who have sustained a burn injury. To address the rehabilitation-specific gaps found in the literature regarding orthotic use in burn rehabilitation and provide guidance to clinicians, a formal expert consensus exercise was conducted as a final step to the project. The resultant manuscript provides a summary of the literature regarding orthotic use with burn patients, one practice guideline, proposed orthotic terminology and additional practice recommendations based on expert opinion. The limitations in the current literature are also discussed, and suggestions are made for future studies in the area of orthotic use after burn injury.
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 | 0.042 | 0.176 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 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".