ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Evaluation of Hand Function Using Relative Motion Extension Concept (with or Without Night Wrist Orthosis) or Dynamic Extension Orthosis for Extensor Tendon Injuries in Zones 4-6-A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare outcomes of early active motion (EAM) using the relative motion extension (RME) approach to outcomes of early passive motion (EPM) with a dynamic extension orthosis (DEO) and to evaluate whether the RME-only approach is equivalent to the RME-plus approach. Fifty adults were randomized into one of the three intervention groups receiving the DEO, RME only, or RME plus orthosis. The score of the Jebsen-Taylor hand function test (JTHFT) without writing and QuickDASH at T1, all measures of mobility at T1 and T2, and grip strength were better in the RME-only and RME-plus group compared to the DEO group, whereas the values of Patient Evaluation Measure (PEM) at T1 and T2, as well as QuickDASH score at T2, orthosis adherence, and the patient's comfort while wearing the orthoses did not statistically significantly differ among the three groups. The RME concept after extensor tendon injuries in zones 4-6 is superior to the DEO protocol in terms of earlier regain of hand function. The DEO and RME protocols were equivalent regarding patients' adherence and satisfaction with the orthosis. We found no differences in the RME-plus and RME-only protocols, indicating the safe use of the RME-only protocol in single extensor tendon injuries in zones 4-6.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.