The effectiveness of biophysical agents in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome- an umbrella review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our objective was to summarize, synthesize, and integrate the evidence evaluating the effectiveness of biophysical agents compared to other conservative treatments, for the management of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). METHODS: This was an overview of systematic reviews (SRs). We searched several online databases and obtained SRs relating to managing CTS using biophysical agents. Two independent researchers screened and appraised the quality of the SRs using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 appraisal tool. We extracted information related to study characteristics as well as the effectiveness of biophysical agents for CTS, the effect sizes, and between-group significances. We categorized the information based on the type of biophysical agent. We also performed a citation mapping and calculated the corrected covered area index. RESULTS: We found 17 SRs addressing 12 different biophysical agents. The quality of the SRs was mainly critically low (n = 16) or low (n = 1). The evidence was inconclusive for the effectiveness of Low-level Laser therapy and favorable for the short-term efficacy of non-thermal ultrasound in improving symptom severity, function, pain, global rating of improvement, satisfaction with treatment, and other electrophysiological measures compared to manual therapy or placebo. Evidence was inconclusive for Extracorporeal Shockwave therapy, and favorable for the short-term effectiveness of Shortwave and Microwave Diathermy on pain and hand function. The corrected covered area index was lower than 35% indicating a low overlap of the SRs. CONCLUSIONS: The findings were based on low-quality primary studies, with an unclear or high risk of bias, small sample sizes, and short follow-ups. Therefore, no recommendations can be made for the long-term effectiveness of any biophysical agents. High-quality evidence is needed to support evidence-based recommendations on the use of biophysical agents in the management of CTS. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022319002, registered on 17/04/2022.
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 | 0.018 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".