Effects of hand-transmitted vibration on fingertip terminal nerve: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundHand-transmitted vibration is one of the most common occupational hazards and is closely related to symptoms of fingertip terminal nerve damage. ObjectiveTo analyze the effects of hand-transmitted vibration on the terminal nerve of fingertips. MethodsWe systematically searched literature about the effects of hand-transmitted vibration on fingertip terminal nerve at home and abroad. The outcome index was the number (rate) of fingertip terminal nerve symptoms reported by the vibration group and the control group, such as finger numbness and finger tingling, and the search period was from database inception to December 2021. The quality of cross-sectional studies was assessed using the criteria recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and the quality of cohort studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). NoteExpress 3.2 was used for literature management, and Excel 2003 was used for data collection and extraction. RevMan 5.4.1 software was used for statistical analysis, and random effect model was used to calculate the OR value of pooled effects and to draw forest plots. Subgroup analysis was carried out according to the working years with vibration exposure. At the same time, sensitivity analysis was performed after excluding studies with the largest weight and funnel plots were generated to evaluate publication bias. ResultsA total of 3619 articles were retrieved, and 39 articles were finally included, including 29 Chinese articles and 10 English articles; 36 cross-sectional studies and 3 cohort studies. In total, 8399 subjects were studied, including 5673 cases in the vibration exposure group and 2726 cases in the control group. Random effect model was used to merge the included literature. The results of meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, hand-transmitted vibration was significantly associated with the self-reported occurrence of finger numbness (OR=8.29, 95%CI: 5.43-12.66), finger tingling (OR=7.50, 95%CI: 4.78-11.77), finger swelling (OR=8.25, 95%CI: 4.06-16.76), finger stiffness (OR=10.71, 95%CI: 3.60-31.87), finger trembling (OR=5.11, 95%CI: 2.60-10.04), hand weakness (OR=11.05, 95%CI: 3.98-30.68), hand sweating (OR=2.70, 95%CI: 1.64-4.43), hand coldness (OR=3.54, 95%CI: 2.42-5.18) (P<0.01). The subgroup analysis showed that the odds ratios of both finger numbness and finger tingling increased in the early and middle stages of vibration exposure (<5 years and 5-10 years of exposure duration）(finger numbness: OR=11.11, 19.07; finger tingling: OR=4.70, 16.55, respectively)(P<0.01), and decreased in the late stage of vibration exposure (10-15 years and ≥15 years of exposure duration) (finger numbness: OR=9.57, 2.30; finger tingling: OR=5.71, 6.00, respectively) (P<0.01). The results of sensitivity analysis showed a stable pooled effect (OR=13.96, 95%CI: 4.85-40.13, Z=4.89, P<0.01). The funnel plot results showed positive publication bias. ConclusionOccupational exposure to hand-transmitted vibration can cause finger numbness, finger tingling, finger swelling, finger stiffness, finger trembling, hand weakness, hand sweating, and hand coldness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".