ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2019
Thirty-day Emergency Department Utilization after Distal Radius Fracture Treatment: Identifying Predictors and Variation.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Social Determinants of Health in Patients Undergoing Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Distal Radius Fractures.Journal of wrist surgery · 2026Article
- Preoperative Depression Screening in Patients with Distal Radius Fractures: An Evaluation of Its Modifiability on Outcomes for Patients with Depressive Disorder.Journal of wrist surgery · 2024Article
- The Effect of Social Deprivation on Hospital Utilization Following Distal Radius Fracture Treatment.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2024Article
- Medicare Eligibility and Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Operative Fixation for Distal Radius Fracture.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Article
- Translating Hand Surgery Evidence to Policy and Practice.Hand clinics · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unplanned hospital visits are costly and may indicate reduced care quality. In this analysis, we aim to investigate the emergency department (ED) utilization for patients 30 days after treatment for a distal radius fracture (DRF) with an emphasis on DRF-related diagnoses of complications and examine nationwide variation in returns to the ED after treatment.
methodsIn this population-based analysis, we used the Truven MarketScan database to identify adult patients who underwent treatment for their DRF. We examined primary diagnoses upon ED visits to assess for relation to treatment. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate the risk of DRF-related ED visits and pain-related diagnoses.
resultsOf the patients who underwent treatment for a DRF, 2% of surgical patients and 4% of nonsurgical patients visited the ED within 30 days after treatment with a DRF-related diagnosis. The most common diagnoses for all patients were pain-related diagnoses. Patients receiving internal fixation were less likely to experience a DRF-related visit compared with patients receiving other surgical treatments most likely because of no exposed hardware. In addition, patients receiving surgical in the South were more likely to visit the ED with a pain-related diagnosis compared with any other region.
conclusionsPolicy makers should include ED visits after treatment for outpatient hand conditions as indicators of care quality. Given the geographic differences in the ED utilization for this patient population, collaborative initiatives and institutional-level policy may help reduce variation in care for patients after treatment for their fracture care.
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.