SynthesisSystematic reviews2017
Reliability of measurements of the fractured clavicle: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Institutional Standardised Protocol for the Treatment of Acute Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures (ADMCFs): Conservative or Surgical Management for Active Patients?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Measurement of midshaft clavicle vertical displacement is not influenced by radiographic projection.JSES international · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of measurements of shortening in midshaft clavicle fractures (MSCF) using any available imaging technique.
methodsElectronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane) were searched. The 4-point-scale COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the methodological quality of studies.
resultsFour studies on reliability of measurement of MSCF were identified. These studies were of fair and poor quality. The reported intrarater reliability varied between none to fair, and intrarater reliability was minimal.
conclusionNo definite conclusions could be drawn. In order to optimize future studies and the realization of comparable results, more research is necessary to identify a standardized method of imaging and measuring. Level of Evidence III.
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.