A systematic review identifying outcomes and outcome measures in Dupuytren’s disease research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review summarizes the outcome reporting standards in Dupuytren's disease treatment research. A search of Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and CINAHL was conducted. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series published between 1997 and 2017, investigating treatment of Dupuytren's disease with fasciectomy, fasciotomy, or collagenase, were eligible for inclusion. Range of motion was the most commonly reported outcome, appearing in 77% of included studies. Outcomes, such as range of motion, recurrence, and clinical success, were frequently defined, however many different definitions were used. We identified 37 unique measurement methods for range of motion, 28 for recurrence, and 25 for clinical success. Most outcomes were assessed at multiple time points, and only a few studies reported results according to established clinical significance thresholds. Development of a core outcome set will help standardize outcome reporting, and ensure future research in this field is relevant, interpretable, and amenable to systematic review and/or meta-analysis.
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 | 0.022 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".