Comparación de Férula Neumática Versus Férula de Yeso en Esguince Grave de Tobillo: Ensayo Clínico Pragmático
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introducción: En esguince lateral grave de tobillo (grado III), la movilización funcional con ortesis ha mostrado ventajas frente a la inmovilización rígida en recuperación funcional temprana y retorno a la actividad, aunque persisten controversias según severidad, cointervenciones y entorno asistencial (5–8). Objetivo: Describir el protocolo de un ensayo clínico pragmático que compara férula neumática frente a férula de yeso en esguince lateral grave de tobillo atendido en urgencias/trauma, con desenlaces clínicos y de uso de recursos relevantes para práctica real. Metodología: Ensayo pragmático, aleatorizado, de grupos paralelos, con análisis por intención de tratar, reportado conforme a CONSORT-pragmático y diseñado con PRECIS-2 (1,2,14). Participan servicios de primer/segundo nivel. Se incluyen adultos con esguince lateral grado III confirmado clínicamente y con criterios de radiografía según Reglas de Ottawa (18). Intervenciones estandarizadas mediante TIDieR (16). Desenlace primario: función a 4 y 12 semanas (FAAM/LEFS). Secundarios: dolor (NRS), tiempo a retorno laboral/deportivo, recaídas, calidad de vida (EQ-5D-5L) y utilización de servicios (10–13,15). Conclusiones: Este protocolo busca aportar evidencia comparativa y aplicable sobre el valor de una férula neumática frente a yeso en el manejo inicial del esguince grave de tobillo, integrando medidas de resultado validadas y una implementación realista en urgencias y consulta externa (5–8,10–16)
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 | 0.083 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".