SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2021
In adults, early mobilization may be beneficial for distal radius fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Surgical Versus Conservative Treatment for Intra-Articular Distal Radius Fractures With Loss of Reduction in Elderly Patients.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Re: "Valuing the evidence on manual therapy in radius fractures: comments on the study by Horoz and colleagues".Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- The Legitimacy for the Use of Splint Immobilization After Elastic Intramedullary Nailing of Both-bone Forearm Shaft Fractures in Children.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2025Article
- Article
- Aeromonas hydrophila-related fulminant necrotizing fasciitis and arterial embolization after plaster placement in Gustilo I distal radius fracture: a case report and literature review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Review
- Literature Review of Postoperative Distal Radius Fracture Immobilization Recommendations.Cureus · 2025Review
- Trends in immobilization following fracture surgery of the wrist and hand in Sweden: A 16-Year Analysis from 2008 to 2023.PloS one · 2025Observational
- Early Daily Activity: Development and description of an occupation-based intervention for surgically repaired distal radius Fractures.Clinical rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Clinical value of rehabilitation nursing after internal fixation of distal radius fractures.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- 3D Printed Orthopaedic External Fixation Devices: A Systematic Review.3D printing in medicine · 2023Article
- Enhanced recovery after surgery for major orthopedic surgery: a narrative review.Knee surgery & related research · 2022Review
- Application Value of the Workshop Practice Teaching Method Based on Target-Oriented Study Modules on the Internet in Orthopedic Rehabilitation.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
- Timing of Return to Driving After Volar Locking-Plate Fixation of Distal Radius Fractures Without Wrist Immobilization: A Prospective Driving Simulator Study.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIt remains debatable if early mobilization (EM) yields a better clinical outcome than the late mobilization (LM) in adults with an acute and displaced distal radial fracture (DRF) of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). Therefore, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing clinical results with the safety of EM with LM following ORIF.
methodsDatabases such as Medline, Cochrane Central Register, and Embase were searched from Jan 1, 2000, to July 31, 2021, and RCTs comparing EM with LM for DRF with ORIF were included in the analysis. The primary outcome of study included disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score at different follow-up times. Wherever the secondary outcomes included patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE), grip strength (GS), visual analog scale (VAS), wrist range of motion (WROM), and associated complications, the two independent reviewers did data extraction for the analysis. Effect sizes of outcome for each group were pooled using random-effects models; thereafter, the results were represented in the forest plots.
resultsNine RCTs with 293 EM and 303 LM participants were identified and included in the study. Our analysis showed that the DASH score of the EM group was significantly better than LM group at the six weeks postoperatively (- 10.15; 95% CI - 15.74 to - 4.57, P < 0.01). Besides, the EM group also had better outcomes in PRWE, GS and WROM at 6 weeks. However, EM showed potential higher rate for implant loosening and/or fracture re-displacement complication (3.00; 95% CI 1.02-8.83, P = 0.05).
conclusionFunctionally, at earlier stages, EM for patients with DRF of ORIF may have a beneficial effect than LM. The mean differences in the DASH score at 6 weeks surpassed the minimal clinically important difference; however, the potentially higher risk of implant loosening and/or fracture re-displacement cannot be ignored. Due to the lack of definitive evidence, multicenter and large sample RCTs are required for determining the optimal rehabilitation protocol for DRF with ORIF. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021240214 2021/2/28.
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.