SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000
Conservative interventions for treating distal radial fractures in adults.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 164 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrospective comparison of percutaneous fixation and volar internal fixation of distal radius fractures.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFracture of the distal radius is a common clinical problem particularly in elderly white women with osteoporosis, in whom the lifetime risk of this injury has been estimated as 15 per cent.
objectivesTo determine the most appropriate conservative treatment for fractures (such as Colles') of the distal radius in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group trials register, Medline and reference lists of trials. Date of the most recent search: April 1998. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials involving skeletally mature patients with a fracture of the distal radius, which compared commonly applied conservative interventions for fracture fixation. These included the application of an external support (plaster cast or brace) and fracture manipulation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All trials, judged as fitting the selection criteria by both reviewers, were independently assessed by both reviewers for methodological quality. Data were extracted for anatomical, functional and clinical, including complications, outcomes. The trials were grouped into categories relating to cast position, extent and duration of immobilisation, use of braces, cast material and fracture manipulation. Although quantitative data from some trials are presented, the lack of good quality trials and trial heterogeneity inhibited pooling of results. MAIN
resultsOver 50 randomised trials comparing treatment options for distal radial fractures were identified. Twenty nine trials of these, involving a total of 3199 mainly female and older patients, met the inclusion criteria for this review. Comprehensive details of the individual trials are provided in tabular form, and their results, grouped as indicated above, have been presented in text and analyses tables. The poor quality and heterogeneity in terms of patient characteristics, interventions compared and outcome measurement, of the included trials meant that no meta-analyses were undertaken. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence from randomised trials to determine which methods of conservative treatment are the most appropriate for the more common types of distal radial fractures in adults. Therefore, at present, practitioners applying conservative management should use an accepted technique with which they are familiar, and which is cost-effective from the perspective of their provider unit. Whilst tempting, any call for further research to clarify the most appropriate conservative treatment for this common fracture must be resisted for now. Instead it is important to reflect on the issues raised in this review, to ascertain patient preferences, prioritise researchable questions and undertake a systematic programme of research after agreeing a core data set for classification of fractures and outcomes.
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.