Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27695880›Full record

ReviewDer Unfallchirurg2016

[Current aspects of therapy of rhizoarthrosis].

T Lögters, S Gehrmann, J Windolf

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Unfallchirurg, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

T LögtersKlinik für Unfall- und Handchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Deutschland. tim.loegters@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.
S GehrmannKlinik für Unfall- und Handchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
J WindolfKlinik für Unfall- und Handchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In patients with carpometacarpal osteoarthritis of the thumb, treatment strategies should be based on functional impairment and pain. Although X‑ray imaging is an integral component of the diagnostics, it is of subordinate importance for the therapy algorithm. Conservative therapy is always the first step in the chain of treatment. The efficacy of non-operative treatment, including intermittent immobilization using splinting and the application of technical assist devices in the daily routine has been proven to achieve pain relief. The intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid or glucocorticoids is still under debate as some good experiences in routine clinical applications are contrasted by the lack of effectiveness in randomized studies. The indications for operative treatment are fulfilled by persisting pain after exhausting all the options for conservative therapy. In this case isolated trapeziectomy is the method of choice. Suspension (interpositioning) arthroplasty is not associated with improved clinical results. More recent procedures which aim to avoid proximalization by tendon interposition, have not yet shown better clinical outcome compared to trapeziectomy alone.

Indexed as

Carpometacarpal JointsEvidence-Based MedicineExercise TestExercise TherapyHumansImmobilizationOsteoarthritisThumbTreatment OutcomeFirst carpometacarpal jointNon-operative treatmentOperative treatmentOsteoarthritisThumb

Identifiers

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.