MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405559196 · doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-078222

Effect of heated mittens on physical hand function in people with hand osteoarthritis: randomised controlled trial

2024· article· en· W4405559196 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cecilie Bartholdy, Anna Døssing, Zara R. Stisen, Sabrina Mai Nielsen, Robin Christensen, Bente Danneskiold‐Samsøe, Henning Bliddal, Marius Henriksen, Karen Ellegaard

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersParker Institute for Cancer ImmunotherapyGigtforeningenFonden til Lægevidenskabens FremmeOak Foundation
KeywordsOsteoarthritisRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationAlternative medicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of electrically heated mittens on physical hand function in people with osteoarthritis of the hands compared with control mittens. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Osteoarthritis outpatient clinic, Copenhagen, Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: 200 people with hand osteoarthritis aged 42-90 years. 100 participants were assigned to the intervention group and 100 to the control group. INTERVENTIONS: Electrically heated mittens or control mittens (heating elements disconnected) worn for at least 15 minutes daily for six weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in hand function measured on the function subscale of the Australian/Canadian hand osteoarthritis index (AUSCAN; score 0-100 points) at six weeks. Key secondary outcomes included changes in the AUSCAN hand pain subscale (score 0-100 points), global rating of hand osteoarthritis related problems (0-100 visual analogue scale), and grip strength (newtons) at six weeks. Analysis of secondary outcomes was performed using a hierarchical gatekeeping approach. RESULTS: 91 participants in the intervention group and 95 in the control group completed the trial. The mean age of participants was 71 years, 87% (n=173) were women, and mean body mass index was 24.9 (SD 4.4). Median disease duration was 10 years (interquartile range 5-15 years). The between group difference for change in AUSCAN function at week 6 was 3.0 points (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.4 to 6.3; P=0.09) in favour of heated mittens. For the key secondary outcome, change in AUSCAN hand pain score from baseline, a group difference was observed of 5.9 points (95% CI 2.2 to 9.5) in favour of heated mittens. Changes in global rating of hand osteoarthritis related problems and grip strength did not differ between the groups with an observed difference between groups of 2.8 points (95% CI -3.7 to 9.2) and 2.3 newtons (95% CI -16.3 to 21.0) in favour of heated mittens, respectively. CONCLUSION: Use of electrically heated mittens for six weeks was not related to a positive change in physical hand function compared with control mittens. Heated mittens provided no additional benefits on global rating of hand osteoarthritis related problems and grip strength. A small benefit was detected for hand pain, but this could have been overestimated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04576403.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicElectromagnetic Fields and Biological EffectsFrench-language works237,207