Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30109504›Full record

SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2018

The value of radiography in the follow-up of extremity fractures: a systematic review.

P van Gerven, S M Rubinstein, C Nederpelt, M F Termaat, P Krijnen, M W van Tulder, I B Schipper

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Is There Value in Early Postoperative Visits Following Hip Fracture Surgery?Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2021
    Article
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

P van GervenDepartment of Traumasurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, P. O. Box 9600, Postzone K6-R, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands. p.van_gerven@lumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0010-1496
S M RubinsteinDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C NederpeltDepartment of Traumasurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, P. O. Box 9600, Postzone K6-R, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
M F TermaatDepartment of Traumasurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, P. O. Box 9600, Postzone K6-R, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
P KrijnenDepartment of Traumasurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, P. O. Box 9600, Postzone K6-R, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
M W van TulderDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
I B SchipperDepartment of Traumasurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, P. O. Box 9600, Postzone K6-R, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe added value of routine radiography in the follow-up of extremity fractures is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to create an overview of radiography use in extremity fracture care and the consequences of these radiographs for the treatment of patients with these fractures. MATERIALS AND

methodsStudies were included if they reported on the use of radiography in the follow-up of extremity fractures and on its influence on treatment strategy, clinical outcome, or complications. A comprehensive search of electronic databases (i.e., PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) was performed to identify relevant studies. Methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies. Level of evidence was assessed using GRADE. The search, quality appraisal, and data extraction were performed independently by two researchers.

resultsEleven studies were included. All studies were retrospective cohorts. Of these, only two used a comparative design. Two of the included studies described fractures of both the upper and lower extremities, four studies concerned fractures of the lower extremity only, and five studies focused on fractures of the upper extremity. Pooling of data was not performed because of clinical heterogeneity. Eight studies reported on a change in treatment strategy related to radiography. Percentages ranged from 0 to 2.6%. The overall results indicated that radiographs in the follow-up of extremity fractures seldom alter treatment strategy, that the vast majority of follow-up radiographs are obtained without a clinical indication and that detection of a complication on a radiograph, in the absence of clinical symptoms, is unlikely. All included studies were regarded of a 'very low' level using GRADE.

conclusionsBased on current literature, the added value of routine radiography in the follow-up of extremity fractures seems limited. Results, however, should be interpreted with care, considering that available evidence is of a low level.

Indexed as

AftercareExtremitiesFractures, BoneHumansAdded valueExtremityFracturesRadiographyRoutineSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30109504
PMCPMC6224023
OpenAlexW2885083444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.