MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410842769 · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2025.05.015

Does Orthosis Improve Outcomes of Conservative Treatment in Trigger Fingers? A 3-Arm Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4410842769 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn Minkhorst, Alexandra Munn, Joy C. MacDermid, Ruby Grewal

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsHand and Upper Limb ClinicLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineRehabilitationConservative treatmentSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the addition of an orthosis improved the efficacy of cortisone injection for the nonoperative management of trigger finger. DESIGN: Block randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient hand clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals presenting to our center with Green severity grade 1-3 trigger finger, aged 18-80, were eligible for inclusion (N=226). Exclusion criteria were previous treatment with either a splint or cortisone injection, trigger thumb, >2 digits involved, grade 4 trigger, or an allergy to cortisone (N=118). INTERVENTIONS: Patients' hands were randomized to nighttime extension orthosis, cortisone injection, or combined treatment, stratified by the Green severity score and comorbid diabetes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported outcome measures and the number of triggering occurrences with 10 repeated grips were collected at 6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: The study included 104 patients representing 122 trigger fingers in 115 hands, with an average follow-up of 29 months. At 6 weeks, there was no significant difference in the incidence of triggering, symptom relief, or the Patient-Reported Wrist and Hand Evaluation score between injection or combined treatment groups. The overall success rate with conservative treatment was high, with 68.9% experiencing resolution or improvement of their symptoms. Grade 3 trigger fingers had a significantly higher rate of surgical release compared with lower-grade trigger fingers (39.1% vs 22.4%, P=.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows no significant benefit of adding an orthosis to cortisone injection in all trigger grades. Overall success with conservative treatment was high (68.9%) in this cohort. Conservative management of grade 1 and 2 triggers is successful in about 75% of patients, regardless of whether treatment is an orthosis, injection, or both, compared with a 60% success rate for grade 3.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation→Same topicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→