MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319079238 · doi:10.5152/eurjrheum.2023.21197

Systematic Review of Non-surgical Therapies for Osteoarthritis of the Hand: An Update

2023· article· en· W4319079238 on OpenAlexafffund
Haonan Mi, Christopher Oh, Tanveer Towheed

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Rheumatology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsMedicineBlindingOsteoarthritisRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyRandomizationQuality of life (healthcare)Alternative medicineClinical trialDiseaseMEDLINEIntensive care medicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hand osteoarthritis is a common disease with significant morbidity. This review aimed to update our earlier systematic reviews which included all published randomized controlled trials evaluating pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in patients with hand osteoarthritis. A total of 133 randomized controlled trials evaluating pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies in hand osteoarthritis were reviewed. Overall, the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials has improved since the last update. Almost all new studies described their methods for randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment. However, studies continued to underreport features specific to hand osteoarthritis, such as pattern of joint involvement and number of affected joints. Standardized outcome assessments for pain and function were commonly presented, but measures of other hand osteoarthritis specific outcomes, such as health-related quality of life and patient global assessments, continued to be underreported. Future trials should consistently report on hand osteo arthritis specific features and outcome assessments in order to make clinically relevant conclusions about the efficacy of the diverse treatment options available.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of RheumatologySame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207