Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32396179›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2020

Effect of Surgery vs Functional Bracing on Functional Outcome Among Patients With Closed Displaced Humeral Shaft Fractures: The FISH Randomized Clinical Trial.

Lasse Rämö, Bakir O Sumrein, Vesa Lepola, Tuomas Lähdeoja, Jonas Ranstam, Mika Paavola, Teppo Järvinen, Simo Taimela, FISH Investigators

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 53 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT01719887 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Surgical Treatment of Humeral Shaft Fractures. Randomized Controlled Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorTöölö HospitalRan2012 to 2028Enrolled82ConditionsFractureArmsConservative treatment, Operative treatment, Physiotherapy
NCT04574336 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Scandinavian Humeral diAphyseal Fracture Trial - A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorKolding SygehusRan2022 to 2031Enrolled287ConditionsFracture Humerus of ShaftArmsSurgical treatment, Non-surgical treatment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Elastic intramedullary nailing: a viable solution to stabilise adult humeral diaphyseal fractures? A systematic review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Risk factors for delayed healing and multiple revisions in humeral shaft nonunion: a retrospective case series.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Regulation of humeral fracture healing by miR-21 through SMAD7-mediated activation of Wnt/β-catenin signaling.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2026
    Article
  12. Factors associated with humeral shaft fracture nonunion.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cost effectiveness analysis of operative versus nonoperative management of humeral shaft fractures in Denmark.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Revisiting the debate on operativeWorld journal of orthopedics · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Lasse RämöOrthopedics and Traumatology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Bakir O SumreinOrthopedics and Traumatology, Tampere University Hospital, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Vesa LepolaOrthopedics and Traumatology, Tampere University Hospital, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Tuomas LähdeojaOrthopedics and Traumatology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Jonas RanstamMdas AB, Ystad, Sweden.
Mika PaavolaOrthopedics and Traumatology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Teppo JärvinenOrthopedics and Traumatology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Simo TaimelaOrthopedics and Traumatology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
FISH Investigators
University of Helsinki · FIHelsinki University Hospital · FILasarettet i Ystad · SETampere University · FITampere University Hospital · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Humeral shaft fractures traditionally have been treated nonsurgically, but there has been a steady increase in the rate of surgery over the past 2 decades without high-quality evidence to justify the trend. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of surgical treatment with open reduction and internal plate fixation to nonsurgical treatment with functional bracing in the treatment of closed humeral shaft fractures. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 2 university hospital trauma centers in Finland, enrollment between November 2012 and January 2018 with a final follow-up of January 2019. A total of 82 adult patients with closed, unilateral, displaced humeral shaft fracture met criteria for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they had cognitive disabilities preventing them from following the protocol or had multimorbidity or multiple trauma. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to surgical treatment with open reduction and internal plate fixation (n = 38) or to nonsurgical treatment with functional bracing (n = 44). Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score at 12 months (range, 0 to 100 points, 0 denotes no disability and 100 extreme disability; minimal clinically important difference, 10 points). Results: Among 82 patients who were randomized (mean age, 48.9 years; 38 women [46%]; 44 men [54%]), 78 (95%) completed the trial. Thirteen (30%) of the patients assigned to functional bracing underwent surgery during the 12-month follow-up period to promote healing of the fracture. At 12 months, the mean DASH score was 8.9 (95% CI, 4.2 to 13.6) in the surgery group and 12.0 (95% CI, 7.7 to 16.4) in the bracing group (between-group difference, -3.1 points; 95% CI, -9.6 to 3.3; P = .34). Eleven patients (25%) allocated to functional bracing developed fracture nonunion. Three patients (8%) allocated to surgery developed a temporary radial nerve palsy. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with closed humeral shaft fracture, internal fixation surgery, compared with nonoperative functional bracing, did not significantly improve functional outcomes at 12 months. However, the substantial amount of treatment crossover from nonoperative to surgical treatment should be considered when interpreting the trial results. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01719887.

Indexed as

BracesClosed Fracture ReductionFracture Fixation, InternalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBone PlatesDisability EvaluationFemaleFractures, UnunitedHumansHumeral FracturesMaleMiddle AgedOpen Fracture ReductionRecovery of Function

Identifiers

PMID32396179
PMCPMC7218498
OpenAlexW3025448887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.