Determining the Effectiveness of a New Device for Hand Therapy (The FEPSim Device): Feasibility Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Impairments of the forearm, wrist, and hand affect a sizable proportion of individuals and impose a significant economic burden on health care systems. FEPSim is a medical device for hand and wrist rehabilitation. The FEPSim device could be part of the standard of care for upper extremity rehabilitation during therapeutic activities to increase range of motion, dexterity, and strength. FEPSim has not yet been tested in a health care setting; therefore, a trial of the effectiveness of FEPSim in upper extremity rehabilitation is warranted. OBJECTIVE This study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial in terms of recruitment, eligibility criteria, the type and number of diagnoses included, the length and dosage of the intervention, and data collection methods. This study also aims to gather clinical and statistical information as well as information related to the cost and usability, which allows for an economic evaluation of the device. METHODS The trial will use a randomized controlled design comprising 47 intervention participants and 47 control group participants. Participants will be adults (age≥18 years) attending outpatient rehabilitation with limitations in their forearm, wrist, or hand function due to distal radial or ulnar fractures, stroke, or osteoarthritis. This study’s primary outcome variables are related to patients’ range of motion and strength, specifically active and passive wrist flexion and extension range of motion; active and passive forearm pronation and supination range of motion; grip strength; and pinch strength. The secondary outcome variables are related to patients’ perceived wrist pain and disability in activities of daily living. The patients’ perceived wrist pain and disability in activities of daily living will be measured using the patient-rated wrist evaluation questionnaire. The control group will receive the standard of care at each of the 2 hospital facilities (Glenrose Rehabilitation and Royal Alexandra Hospitals). The intervention group will receive the same standard of care as the control group at each facility and will use the FEPSim device for therapeutic activities to increase strength, range of motion, resistance, and dexterity. All the participants will be assessed at baseline (week 0); weeks 2, 4, and 8; and postintervention (week 10). RESULTS The FEPSim study was launched in April 2020. This study is currently on hold because of the global COVID-19 pandemic. The recruitment process is expected to resume by September 2020, and the primary impact analysis is expected to be conducted by December 2020. CONCLUSIONS This study will provide valuable information on the measurement of comparative intervention effects, technology acceptance by hand therapists, and how associated treatment and product costs will contribute to the evidence planning process, which will be crucial for the future adoption of FEPSim. CLINICALTRIAL International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry ISRCTN13656014; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13656014 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/22145
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 | 0.065 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.017 |
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".