ArticlePloS one2026
Patient-perspective evidence on the acceptability, usability, and everyday impact of relative motion orthoses in adult hand rehabilitation: A scoping review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Relative motion orthoses (RM orthoses) are finger-based orthoses used in adult hand rehabilitation to protect healing structures or optimist movement patterns while permitting active hand use. Existing reviews have mapped RM-orthosis indications, configuration, and clinical outcomes, and the most recent has begun to incorporate patient-experience findings; however, patient-perspective evidence has not yet been mapped as the primary object of a synthesis, organised against defined dimensions of acceptability, usability, and everyday impact. The objective of this scoping review is to map the extent, range, and nature of patient-perspective evidence on the acceptability, usability, and everyday impact of RM orthoses in adult hand rehabilitation. The review will follow Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Sources will include adults aged 18 years or older who have used an RM orthosis for hand rehabilitation. Any adult hand rehabilitation context will be considered. Qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, case-based, survey, and grey literature sources will be included when patient-perspective data can be extracted. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Complete, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection will be searched, together with Google Scholar, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and Overton. Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data, with a third reviewer available for adjudication. Critical appraisal will not be undertaken. The protocol has been prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/dcyf8/overview). Findings will be presented in tabular, diagrammatic, and narrative form, including a summary-of-characteristics table and a concept-mapping matrix. This review will provide an evidence map to guide patient-centred orthotic practice and identify research priorities.
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.