MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251796245 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001554

Local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome

2002· review· en· W4251796245 on OpenAlexaff
Shawn Marshall, Gaétan Tardif, Nigel Ashworth

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarpal tunnel syndromeMedicineRelative riskConfidence intervalPlaceboRandomized controlled trialCorticosteroidSurgeryCarpal tunnelWristMeta-analysisInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome is a clinical syndrome manifested by signs and symptoms of irritation of the median nerve at the level of the carpal tunnel in the wrist. Local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome has been studied but its effectiveness and duration of benefit of local corticosteroid injection for Carpal tunnel syndrome remain unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of local steroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome versus placebo injection or other non-surgical interventions in improving clinical outcome and to determine the length of symptom relief. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group register (searched June 2002), MEDLINE (searched January 1966 to May 2002), EMBASE (searched January 1980 to May 2002)and CINAHL(searched January 1982 to May 2002). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized or quasi-randomized studies of participants with carpal tunnel syndrome treated with local corticosteroid injection. The primary outcome measure was clinical improvement. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers independently selected the trials to be included rated for their overall quality. Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each trial and summary relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were also calculated. MAIN RESULTS: We identified nine randomized controlled trials. Four were excluded. One trial demonstrated clinical improvement of carpal tunnel syndrome at one month following local corticosteroid compared to placebo injection (Relative risk 3.83 (95% confidence intervals 1.82 to 8.05)). One trial compared local corticosteroid injection to oral steroid and at three months after treatment there was a significant improvement in the injection group (mean difference -7.00 (95% confidence intervals -11.58 to -2.42)). In one trial the rate of improvement after one month was greater after local than systemic corticosteroid injection (Relative risk 3.17(95% confidence intervals 1.02 to 9.87)). In one trial symptoms did not improve significantly for the injection group at eight weeks after injection compared to treatment with anti-inflammatory medication and splinting (mean difference 0.10 (95% confidence intervals -0.33 to 0.53)). Although local steroid injection did provide benefit compared to Helium-Neon Laser treatment at two weeks after onset of treatment (Relative risk 0.27 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.83), this effect did not hold at six months follow-up (Relative risk 0.76 (95% confidence intervals 0.48 to 1.21). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Local corticosteroid injection for carpal tunnel syndrome provides greater clinical improvement in symptoms one month after injection compared to placebo. Symptom relief beyond one month compared to placebo has not been demonstrated. Local corticosteroid injection provides significantly greater clinical improvement compared to oral steroid up to three months after treatment. Local corticosteroid injection does not provide improved clinical outcome compared to either anti-inflammatory treatment and splinting after eight weeks or Helium -Neon laser treatment after six months.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.176
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations114
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207