Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30872549›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Outcome of surgical repair of adult digital nerve injury: a systematic review.

Rebecca L E Dunlop, Justin Conrad Rosen Wormald, Abhilash Jain

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Digital nerve injury: to repair or not?Irish journal of medical science · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Traumatized Hand - Update at the First Visit.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2021
    Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca L E DunlopDepartment of Hand Surgery, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1990-7257
Justin Conrad Rosen WormaldPlastic, Reconstructive and Burns Surgery, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6197-4093
Abhilash JainNuffield Department of Orthopaedics Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBRoyal Cornwall Hospital Trust · GBStoke Mandeville Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA systematic review to assess the evidence supporting surgical repair of digital nerve injury versus no repair in adults in terms of clinical outcomes.

designA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review with methodology based on the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions. DATA SOURCES: Databases included OvidMEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, clinicaltrials.gov and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, searched from inception until 10 November 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Adult digital nerve injury in which either direct repair or no repair was undertaken and an outcome measure was recorded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study data extracted included demographics, injury type and extent, timing, treatment details, outcome data and time points, adverse outcomes, hand therapy and return to work. The National Institute of Health quality assessment tool for case series was used to assess risk of bias.

resultsThirty studies were included. One compared surgical repair with non-repair. All studies were case series of between 15 and 110 nerve injuries, with heterogeneous patient, injury and treatment characteristics. Two studies detailed nerve repair without magnification. Static 2-point discrimination (s2PD) was the most commonly reported outcome measure. Return of protective sensation was achieved in most cases in the nerve repair and no nerve repair groups. Repair resulted in better s2PD than no repair, but <25% repaired nerves achieved normal levels. Adverse outcomes were similar between repair and no repair groups.

conclusionsOnly level IV evidence is available to support surgical repair of digital nerves in adults. Return of normal sensibility is uncommon and almost all unrepaired nerves regained protective sensation by 6 months and all patients declined further surgery. There was no difference in adverse outcomes. There is currently a lack of high-quality evidence to support surgical repair of digital nerve injuries in adults and further research is needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017065092.

Indexed as

AdultFinger InjuriesHumansNerve RegenerationOutcome Assessment, Health CarePlastic Surgery ProceduresPrognosisRecovery of FunctionSensationTouchdigital nervenerve injurynerve repair

Identifiers

PMID30872549
PMCPMC6429897
OpenAlexW2921797229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.