SynthesisHand (New York, N.Y.)2020
Surgery and Conservative Management of Camptodactyly in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Hand (New York, N.Y.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- From Overgrowth to Complex Malformations: A NovelChildren (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Conservative Treatment of Camptodactyly with use of Orthoses: A Retrospective Cohort.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2024Article
- Strategy for the Conservative Treatment of Type-III Camptodactyly in Children with Beals-Hecht Syndrome.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2024Article
- CAMPTODACTYLY AND CLINODACTYLY - NEW UNDERSTANDING OF KNOWN DEFORMITIES.Acta clinica Croatica · 2022Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Camptodactyly is a pediatric hand condition, the treatment of which remains controversial. The authors' aim was to improve patient care through clarifying the definition of camptodactyly and indications for surgical and/or conservative management, summarizing outcomes, and defining risks. A systematic review was conducted of articles in all languages on outcomes following surgical and/or conservative management of idiopathic camptodactyly in children using MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), PubMed, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) (until January 2017). The primary outcome was posttreatment flexion contracture, and the secondary outcomes were indications for surgery, complications, and patient satisfaction. Database searching generated 16 final articles, with 7 case series and 9 retrospective cohort studies. There was a lack of consistency on the definition of camptodactyly and in outcome reporting. All 16 studies received a "Weak" global rating and demonstrated low-quality evidence, suggesting that treatment of camptodactyly with operative or nonoperative measures reduces the degree of flexion contracture in most patients (from pretreatment averages of 20°-85° to posttreatment averages of 5°-37°). There was general agreement that surgery should be reserved for contracture >30° or failure to respond to conservative management. Surgery generally led to more complications compared with conservative management. Only one study reported on functional limitations, and another reported on patient-reported outcomes. Current evidence of the effectiveness of camptodactyly treatment in addressing both joint-specific deformity and patient-perceived function and appearance is insufficient to guide patient care. Future research may consider the development of decision aids to guide patients and families through selecting management strategies and to promote shared decision making.
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.