Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38493121›Full record

ArticleTrials2024

Flexor Injury Rehabilitation Splint Trial (FIRST): protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing three splints for finger flexor tendon repairs.

Emma Bamford, Hannah Berntsson, Suzanne Beale, Lauren Desoysa, Joseph Dias, Sienna Hamer-Kiwacz, Daniel Hind, Nick Johnson, Amanda Loban, Kaye Molloy and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Emma BamfordPulvertaft Hand Centre, Royal Derby Hospital, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
Hannah BerntssonSCHARR, Division of Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, S1 4DA, Sheffield, UK. h.berntsson@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6285-6985
Suzanne BealeQueen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, B15 2GW, Birmingham, UK.
Lauren DesoysaSCHARR, Division of Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, S1 4DA, Sheffield, UK.
Joseph DiasUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS Foundation Trust, LE1, 7RH, Leicester, UK.
Sienna Hamer-KiwaczSCHARR, Division of Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, S1 4DA, Sheffield, UK.
Daniel HindSCHARR, Division of Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, S1 4DA, Sheffield, UK.
Nick JohnsonPulvertaft Hand Centre, Royal Derby Hospital, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
Amanda LobanSCHARR, Division of Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, S1 4DA, Sheffield, UK.
Kaye Molloy, Derby, England.
Emma MorvanSCHARR, Division of Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, S1 4DA, Sheffield, UK.
Ines RombachSCHARR, Division of Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, S1 4DA, Sheffield, UK.
Anna SelbyPulvertaft Hand Centre, Royal Derby Hospital, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, DE22 3NE, UK.
Praveen ThokalaSCHARR, Division of Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, S1 4DA, Sheffield, UK.
Chris TurtleSCHARR, Division of Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, S1 4DA, Sheffield, UK.
Stephen WaltersSCHARR, Division of Population Health, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, S1 4DA, Sheffield, UK.
Avril DrummondSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2QL, UK.
University of Sheffield · GBRoyal Derby Hospital · GBUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Derby · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Health Technology Assessment Programme NIHR133582
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWithout surgical repair, flexor tendon injuries do not heal and patients' ability to bend fingers and grip objects is impaired. However, flexor tendon repair surgery also requires optimal rehabilitation. There are currently three custom-made splints used in the rehabilitation of zone I/II flexor tendon repairs, each with different assumed harm/benefit profiles: the dorsal forearm and hand-based splint (long), the Manchester short splint (short), and the relative motion flexion splint (mini). There is, however, no robust evidence as to which splint, if any, is most clinical or cost effective. The Flexor Injury Rehabilitation Splint Trial (FIRST) was designed to address this evidence gap.

methodsFIRST is a parallel group, superiority, analyst-blind, multi-centre, individual participant-randomised controlled trial. Participants will be assigned 1:1:1 to receive either the long, short, or mini splint. We aim to recruit 429 participants undergoing rehabilitation following zone I/II flexor tendon repair surgery. Potential participants will initially be identified prior to surgery, in NHS hand clinics across the UK, and consented and randomised at their splint fitting appointment post-surgery. The primary outcome will be the mean post-randomisation score on the patient-reported wrist and hand evaluation measure (PRWHE), assessed at 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures include blinded grip strength and active range of movement (AROM) assessments, adverse events, adherence to the splinting protocol (measured via temperature sensors inserted into the splints), quality of life assessment, and further patient-reported outcomes. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness of each splint, and a qualitative sub-study will evaluate participants' preferences for, and experiences of wearing, the splints. Furthermore, a mediation analysis will determine the relationship between patient preferences, splint adherence, and splint effectiveness. DISCUSSION: FIRST will compare the three splints with respect to clinical efficacy, complications, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. FIRST is a pragmatic trial which will recruit from 26 NHS sites to allow findings to be generalisable to current clinical practice in the UK. It will also provide significant insights into patient experiences of splint wear and how adherence to splinting may impact outcomes.

trial registrationISRCTN: 10236011.

Indexed as

Joint DiseasesTendon InjuriesEquivalence Trials as TopicHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSplintsTendonsTreatment OutcomeFinger flexor tendon repairFinger flexor tendon ruptureHand therapyOccupational therapyPhysiotherapyRandomised controlled trialRehabilitationSplintingSurgery

Identifiers

PMID38493121
PMCPMC10943783
OpenAlexW4392883225

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.