ArticleJoint diseases and related surgery2022
Thumb duplication classifications: Is there still a need for improvement?
Article in Joint diseases and related surgery, 2022. 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.
- A minimally invasive technique for residual zigzag deformities of the thumb.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2023Article
- Epidemiological characteristics and distribution of congenital thumb duplication in south China: An analysis of 2,300 thumbs in 2,108 children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to compare the usefulness of two systems in classifying thumb duplication cases and give some examples of the cases we believe that are unclassifiable. PATIENTS AND
methodsBetween January 2011 and January 2018, a total of 50 patients (29 males, 21 females; median age: 46.4±68.3 months; range, 1 to 318 months) with thumb duplications as assessed according to the Wassel and Rotterdam classification systems were included.
resultsDuplication was present in the right hand in 28, in the left hand in 21, and in both hands in one patient. According to the Wassel classification system, 45 patients could be allocated in any of the types; however, five patients could not be classified. According to the Rotterdam classification, 47 cases fell into one of the classifications; however, three cases could not be classified.
conclusionDespite efforts to find the best classification system for thumb duplications, the proposed systems may not fully cover the presented radial polydactyly cases, and additions to the system are required.
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.