The Effect of Proprioception Training on Pain Intensity in Thumb Basal Joint Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A randomized controlled trial of forty-five females over 18 years of age with diagnosis of thumb basal osteoarthritis in their dominant hand and with a minimum pain rating of 4/10 on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) during activities of daily living (ADLs) were recruited from March to June 2021. The group receiving proprioception training was compared to routine conservative physiotherapy treatment. The main purpose of this clinical trial is to test the effect of proprioception training on pain intensity in subjects with thumb osteoarthritis. Primary outcome was joint position sense (JPS) for the assessment of CMC proprioception and secondary outcomes were Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) for the assessment of patient satisfaction and the Quick-DASH which assessed upper limb function. A block randomization was carried out for the control group (n = 22) and experimental group (n = 23). Participants and evaluator were blinded to the group assignment. Proprioception training produced a statistically significant reduction in pain post intervention, but this reduction was small (d = 0.1) at the 3-month follow-up. JPS accuracy demonstrated statistically significant differences between the groups (p = 0.001) post-intervention and at the 3-month follow-up (p < 0.003). Statistically significant differences between means were found in both the Quick-Dash and COPM post intervention (both, p < 0.001), as well as at the 3-month follow-up (both, p < 0.001). There was a significant time factor for the reduction of pain intensity over time but effect sizes between groups was small at the 3-month follow-up period. Proprioceptive training improves thumb JPS accuracy; however, it does not contribute to a reduction in pain intensity in the long term. The inclusion of a proprioceptive program may be beneficial for improving individuals with thumb CMC OA sensorimotor performance. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04738201. No funding was provided for this study.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".