ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2016
Frequency of Fractures Identified on Post-Reduction Radiographs After Shoulder Dislocation.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2016. 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.
- A Retrospective Study of 1076 Cases of Shoulder Dislocation at a Single Center in Türkiye to Evaluate the Role of Post-Reduction Radiography in the Detection of Clinically Significant Fractures.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Article
- A pictorial presentation and the clinical use of the modified trauma axial (MTA) shoulder x-ray view.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2023Article
- Should All Shoulder Dislocations be Closed Reduced? Assessment of Risk of Iatrogenic Injury in 150 Patients.The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 2017Article
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
introductionMost emergency physicians routinely obtain shoulder radiographs before and after shoulder dislocations. However, currently there is limited literature demonstrating how frequently new fractures are identified on post-reduction radiographs. The primary objective of this study was to determine the frequency of new, clinically significant fractures identified on post-reduction radiographs with a secondary outcome assessing total new fractures identified.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review using appropriate International Classification of Diseases, 9(th) Revision (ICD-9) codes to identify all potential shoulder dislocations that were reduced in a single, urban, academic emergency department (ED) over a five-year period. We excluded cases that required operative reduction, had associated proximal humeral head or shaft fractures, or were missing one or more shoulder radiograph reports. All charts were abstracted separately by two study investigators with disagreements settled by consensus among three investigators. Images from indeterminate cases were reviewed by a radiology attending physician with musculoskeletal expertise. The primary outcome was the percentage of new, clinically significant fractures defined as those altering acute ED management. Secondary outcomes included percentage of new fractures of any type.
resultsWe identified 185 total patients meeting our study criteria. There were no new, clinically significant fractures on post-reduction radiographs. There were 13 (7.0%; 95% CI [3.3%-10.7%]) total new fractures identified, all of which were without clinical significance for acute ED management.
conclusionPost-reduction radiographs do not appear to identify any new, clinically significant fractures. Practitioners should re-consider the use of routine post-reduction radiographs in the ED setting for shoulder dislocations.
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.