ArticlePhysical therapy2021
Outpatient Physical Therapy Use Following Tibial Fractures: A Retrospective Commercial Claims Analysis.
Article in Physical therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acupuncture for Post-Operative Pain Relief and Functional Improvement in Tibial Fracture: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Patient preferences for physical therapy programs after a lower extremity fracture: a discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to characterize outpatient physical therapy (OPT) use following tibial fractures and examine the variability of OPT attendance, time of initiation, number of visits, and length of care by patient, injury, and treatment factors. In the absence of clinical guidelines, results will guide future efforts to optimize OPT following tibial fractures.
methodsThis study used 2016 to 2017 claims from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims Research Database. The cohort included 9079 patients with International Classification of Diseases: Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes for tibial fractures. Use in the year following initial fracture management was determined using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Differences in use were examined using χ2 tests, t tests, and Kruskal-Wallace tests.
resultsSixty-seven percent of patients received OPT the year following fracture. OPT attendance was higher in female patients, in patients with 1 or no major comorbidity, and in the western United States. Attendance was higher in patients with upper tibial fractures, moderate-severity injuries, and treatment with external fixation and in patients discharged to an inpatient rehabilitation facility. Patients started OPT on average [SD] 50 [52.6] days after fracture and attended 18 [16.1] visits over the course of 101 [86.4] days. The timing of OPT, the number of visits attended, and the length of OPT care varied by patient, injury, and treatment-level factors.
conclusionsOne-third of insured patients do not receive OPT following tibial fracture. The timing of OPT initiation, the length of OPT care, and the number of visits attended by patients with tibial fractures were highly variable. Further research is needed to standardize referral and prescription practices for OPT following tibial fractures. IMPACT: OPT use varies based on patient, injury, and treatment-level factors following tibial fractures. Results from this study can be used to inform future efforts to optimize rehabilitation care for patients with tibial fractures.
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.