Efficacy of Nonsurgical Interventions for Trapeziometacarpal (Thumb Base) Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the literature on the efficacy of existing nonsurgical interventions for trapeziometacarpal (TM) osteoarthritis (TMO). METHODS: A medical librarian conducted an electronic search in 16 databases. Two authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidance was followed to integrate a valid body of evidence from the existing systematic reviews. Intervention effects were estimated based on the Cochrane Collaboration review methodology. RESULTS: We identified 17 systematic reviews, 34 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 6 nonrandomized controlled trials. Most of the studies had unclear or high risk of biases. Evidence of low-to-moderate quality supports the superiority of the following interventions for pain and/or physical function: 1) saline over steroid intraarticular injections confirmed by radiography, 2) saline injections over sham (i.e., pressure) in tender subcutaneous areas, 3) custom-made thermoplastic thumb orthosis over no intervention or a control, 4) custom-made thermoplastic hand-based TM joint orthosis over no intervention, 5) radial nerve mobilization over sham ultrasound, and 6) a combination of hand exercises and TM joint and median/radial nerve mobilization over sham ultrasound. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive systematic review allowed collating evidence-based data on the efficacy of nonsurgical interventions for TMO. Steroid intraarticular injections would not be more effective than saline injections. Rehabilitative interventions (orthosis, exercises, nerve mobilization) would be efficacious. However, these findings must be treated with circumspection due to methodologic limitations in many studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".