Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19821330›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009

Surgery for thumb (trapeziometacarpal joint) osteoarthritis.

Anne Wajon, Emma Carr, Ian Edmunds, Louise Ada

RetractedAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 54 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 142 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Surgery for thumb (trapeziometacarpal joint) osteoarthritis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anne WajonHand Therapy at Hornsby, 2/49 Palmerston Rd, Hornsby, New South Wales, Australia, 2077.
Emma Carr
Ian Edmunds
Louise Ada
University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. Surgery has been used to treat persistent pain and dysfunction at the base of the thumb. However, there is no evidence to suggest that any one surgical procedure is superior to another.

objectivesTo compare the effect of different surgical techniques in reducing pain and improving physical function, patient global assessment, range of motion and strength in people with trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis at 12 months. Additionally, to investigate whether there was any improvement or deterioration in outcomes between the 12-month review and five year follow up. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched:(CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to Dec 2008), CINAHL (1982 to Dec 2008), AMED (1985 to Dec 2008) and EMBASE (1974 to Dec 2008), and performed handsearching of conference proceedings and reference lists from reviews and papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials where the intervention was surgery and pain, physical function, patient global assessment, range of motion or strength was measured as an outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies according to the inclusion criteria, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data, including adverse effects. We contacted trial authors for missing information. MAIN

resultsWe included nine studies involving 477 participants. Seven surgical procedures were identified (trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI), trapeziectomy, trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction, trapeziectomy with interpositional arthroplasty, Artelon joint resurfacing, arthrodesis and joint replacement). Studies reported results of a mixed group of participants with Stage II-IV osteoarthritis, with a range of improvement for pain and physical function. The majority of studies included in this review had an unclear risk of bias which raises some doubt about the results. No procedure demonstrated any superiority over another in terms of pain, physical function, patient global assessment or range of motion. Of participants who underwent trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition, 22% had adverse effects (including scar tenderness, tendon adhesion or rupture, sensory change, or Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (Type 1)) compared to 10% who underwent trapeziectomy. Trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition is therefore associated with 12% more adverse effects (RR = 2.21, 95% CI 1.18 to 4.15). AUTHORS'

conclusionsAlthough it appears that no one procedure produces greater benefit in terms of pain and physical function, there was insufficient evidence to be conclusive. Trapeziectomy has fewer complications than trapeziectomy with LRTI.

Indexed as

Hand JointsHumansOsteoarthritisRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRange of Motion, ArticularRecovery of FunctionThumbTrapezium Bone

Identifiers

PMID19821330
OpenAlexW4242837855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.