Effectiveness of mirror therapy to treat musculoskeletal injuries of the hand and wrist: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mirror therapy is an effective intervention for improving outcomes when an affected extremity has severe movement restrictions or pain. PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of mirror therapy interventions on musculoskeletal injuries of the hand/wrist. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines and registered with Open Science Framework (DOI:XXX). The search was conducted in EMBASE, PubMed, and Scopus in April 2024. Search terms included hand and wrist injuries, mirror therapy, pain, range of motion, strength, and function. Descriptive synthesis was used to summarize the data for interventions and outcomes. The Cochrane RoB 2 tool was used for quality assessment. RESULTS: Samples ranged from 22 to 40 participants with a total of 220 participants. Five studies combined mirror therapy with active exercise and had comparator groups performing active exercises for the same duration. Mirror therapy intervention ranged from 20 to 75 minutes per session, two to five times a week for 3-8weeks. Mirror therapy interventions reduced pain, improved range of motion, strength, and function in most studies. Greater improvements for the mirror therapy groups than the comparator group were reported for pain, range of motion, and function in 20%-75% of the studies. Risk assessment for the seven studies resulted in one high, four moderate, and two low quality studies. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence suggests that mirror therapy interventions may be effective at reducing pain, improving range of motion, strength and function for musculoskeletal hand and wrist injuries. Further investigation is warranted with larger trials with more homogenous interventions.
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 | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".