ArticleSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina2013
The IDEAL classification system: a new method for classifying fractures of the distal extremity of the radius - description and reproducibility.
Article in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treatment of reducible unstable fractures of the distal radius: randomized clinical study comparing the locked volar plate and external fixator methods: study protocol.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2014Trial
- Assessment of Reproducibility and Agreement of the IDEAL Classification for Distal Radius Fractures.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2024Article
- Establishment and preliminary evaluation of CT-based classification for distal radius fracture.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Distal Radial Fractures with Scaphoid Fractures.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2024Article
- Computed tomography's influence on the classifications and treatment of the distal radius fractures.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2015Article
- Statistical analysis on the concordance of the radiological evaluation of fractures of the distal radius subjected to traction.Revista brasileira de ortopediaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE There is no consensus concerning which classification for distal radius fractures is best and the existing methods present poor reproducibility. This study aimed to describe and assess the reproducibility of the new IDEAL classification, and to compare it with widely used systems. DESIGN AND SETTING Reproducibility study, Hand Surgery Section, Universidade Federal de São Paulo. METHODS The IDEAL classification and its evidence-based rationale are presented. Sixty radiographs (posteroanterior and lateral) from patients with distal radius fractures were classified by six examiners: a hand surgery specialist, a hand surgery resident, an orthopedic generalist, an orthopedic resident and two medical students. Each of them independently assessed the radiographs at three different times. We compared the intra and interobserver concordance of the IDEAL, AO, Frykman and Fernandez classifications using Cohen's kappa (κ) (for two observers) and Fleiss's κ (for more than two observers). RESULTS The concordance was high for the IDEAL classification (κ = 0.771) and moderate for Frykman (κ = 0.556), Fernandez (κ = 0.671) and AO (κ = 0.650). The interobserver agreement was moderate for the IDEAL classification (κ = 0.595), but unsatisfactory for Frykman (κ = 0.344), Fernandez (κ = 0.496) and AO (κ = 0.343). CONCLUSION The reproducibility of the IDEAL classification was better than that of the other systems analyzed, thus making the IDEAL system suitable for application. Complementary studies will confirm whether this classification system makes adequate predictions for therapy and prognosis.
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.