ArticleEmergency radiology2020
Second physician review of radiographs after wrist and ankle reductions offers limited utility to clinical management.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to determine the clinical utility of second-physician review of radiographs obtained after reduction of distal radius and ankle fractures.
methodsFifty consecutive ankle and distal radius fractures requiring reduction were reviewed. The time from post-reduction radiograph to second-physician interpretation was obtained. The second-physicians' interpretation was evaluated for clinically influential information. Patients requiring a repeat reduction were identified, and the timing of the repeat reduction radiograph was compared with the timing of the second-physician interpretation of the initial post-reduction radiograph.
resultsThe mean time of second-physician interpretation for post reduction ankle radiographs was 6 h and 47 min (range 4 min to 43 h and 3 min). Eleven of 50 (22%) interpretations of post reduction ankle radiographs commented on acceptability of reduction. The mean time of second-physician interpretation for post reduction distal radius radiographs was 5 h and 34 min (range 8 min to 22 h and 59 min). Seven of 50 (14%) interpretations of post reduction distal radius radiographs commented on acceptability of reduction. Three distal radius (6%) and 8 ankle fractures (16%) required repeat reduction. Repeat reductions were completed in 10/11 cases (91%) before the second-physician review of the initial post reduction radiograph was obtained. In only 1 case of repeat reduction was the second-physician review of the post reduction radiograph available before repeat reduction was attempted.
conclusionThe timing and quality of second-physician review of post-reduction radiographs offers little utility to the clinical management of ankle and distal radius fractures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31834532What 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.