SynthesisMedicine2020
The effectiveness and safety of plaster splint and splints for distal radius fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Cast immobilization duration for distal radius fractures, a systematic review.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024Pooled it
- Design and application of a three-dimensional skeletonized structure for distal radius fracture splinting based on 3D printing technology.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Manual reduction and splint fixation for distal radius fracture with dislocation: a case report.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the efficacy and safety of plaster splint vs splints in the treatment of distal radius fractures (DRFs).
methodsFor a more comprehensive collection of original study, we mainly searched 9 electronic databases including the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Clinical Trials.gov, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and VIP Database. The retrieval date of all databases is from the establishment to January 2019. In the aspect of assessing the quality of original research methodology, we mainly rely on the Cochrane risk bias assessment tool and GRADE assessment method. Revman 5.3 is used for statistical analysis.
resultsA total of 8 studies involving 717 participants were included. The results showed that effective rate (RR = 0.99, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.07, P = .83), reduction rate (RR = 1.00, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.07, P = .98), and complication rate of the plaster splint had no significant difference with the splint. In addition, for the excellent rate of treatment, subgroup analysis based on the included studies found that when the intervention period was 4 weeks, the plaster splint was better than the splint, and when the intervention period was more than 4 weeks, there was no significant difference between them.
conclusionsThere is no sufficient evidence that plaster splint is superior to splint. However, according to current evidence, plaster splint is more effective than splint when the intervention period is shorter (4 weeks), and its advantage disappears when the intervention period is longer (> 4 weeks). It should be noted that the results of this study were influenced by the sample size and the quality of the included studies. More high-quality and well-controlled RCTs are needed to draw better conclusions in further study.
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.