ArticleZeitschrift fur Rheumatologie2014
[Rheumatic forefoot deformities].
Article in Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Rheumatism operations in a state of flux-"Foot"].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2018Review
- [Forefoot relief with shoe inserts : Effects of different construction strategies].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2018Article
- [Metatarsalgia: Differential diagnosis and therapy].Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The frequency and extent of rheumatic forefoot deformities have been greatly reduced since the introduction of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD). The accompanying reduction in arthritic destruction of joints opens up new treatment options whereby priority is given to joint preservation. This is true for the first middle foot ray as well as for the small toe rays. Whereas resection arthroplasty of the metatarsophalangeal joints II-V was previously considered the gold standard treatment, joint-preserving operative procedures (e.g. metatarsal osteotomy and periarticular soft tissue interventions) are now being increasingly more propagated. Resection arthroplasty of the first midfoot ray has major biomechanical disadvantages so that it is not surprising that reconstructive procedures are given priority. In patients with severe arthritic destruction of the first metatarsophalangeal joint, arthrodesis has substantial biomechanical advantages compared to resection arthroplasty. Nevertheless, it has not yet been confirmed that fusion leads to superior clinical results.
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.