Systematic Review of Non-surgical Therapies for Osteoarthritis of the Hand: An Update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.015 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".