ReviewHand therapy2026
Does dynamic extension splinting or early active motion provide better outcomes post extensor pollicis longus repair? A systematic review.
Review in Hand therapy, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Limited research exists on the post-operative treatment of extensor pollicis longus (EPL) repair (tendon transfer and direct repair). Early active motion (EAM) and dynamic extension splinting (DES) are becoming more common compared to static casting. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether EAM was superior to DES post EPL direct repair or tendon transfer. Outcomes of interest included range of motion, strength, and adverse events. Methods: A systematic search of AMED, EBSCO health database (CINAHL, MEDLINE, and SPORTDiscus), and Scopus was completed. Randomised control trials or cohort studies were included if they followed either an EAM or DES rehabilitation protocol and assessed total active motion, grip strength, pinch strength, or range of motion post EPL surgical repairs. Data extracted included the surgical procedure, rehabilitation protocols, and results. The Downs and Black checklist for clinical trial quality assessment was utilised to assess the methodological quality. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies included DES and two studies included EAM. Both interventions resulted in improvements in ROM, grip strength and pinch strength with neither intervention being superior. There was no increase in adverse outcomes by using EAM or DES. The risk of bias following assessment of methodological quality of included studies ranged from good to poor. Discussion: The use of EAM should be considered post EPL repair or tendon transfer. EAM does not result in superior outcomes post EPL repair compared to DES, equally EAM does not appear to be inferior compared to DES.
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.