ArticleHand (New York, N.Y.)2024
Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment for Closed Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures.
Article in Hand (New York, N.Y.), 2024. 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.
- Kirschner wire intramedullary fixation combined with improved nice knot-end cerclage temporarily fixation-assisted reduction before plate osteosynthesis in treating displaced and comminuted clavicle fractures.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
- An Institutional Standardised Protocol for the Treatment of Acute Displaced Midshaft Clavicle Fractures (ADMCFs): Conservative or Surgical Management for Active Patients?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNonoperative treatment for clavicle fractures has historically been standard of care, but with a concomitant rise in recent operative fixation for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures (MCF), a re-evaluation of treatment modalities is necessary. The purpose of this study was to compare nonunion rates among operative and nonoperative treatment of closed displaced MCF. Specifically, we assessed the following between operative and nonoperative management: (1) 90-day to 1-year nonunion and malunion incidence; (2) 90-day medical complications; and (3) 90-day to 1-year total costs of care.
methodsAn all-payer national database was retrospectively reviewed for closed displaced MCF from 2010 to 2020 (n = 173 188). Of these, patients undergoing operative fixation within 30 days of a displaced MCF were identified (n = 17 452). Nonoperative displaced MCF patients were matched with operative patients at a 3:1 ratio. Outcomes at 90 days and 1 year included: nonunion, total cost, and complications.
resultsClosed displaced MCF with operative fixation resulted in significantly increased nonunion rates at 1 year compared with nonoperative treatment (3.97% vs 1.63%, odds ratio = 2.50 [2.26-2.77],
conclusionOur study found higher nonunion incidence after operative fixation of displaced MCF. These results may serve as a catalyst for future high-quality prospective studies comparing treatment options for closed displaced MCF.
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.