ReviewJPRAS open2022
Primary treatment of type B post-axial ulnar polydactyly: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in JPRAS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost Effectiveness of Hand Postaxial Polydactyly Type B Excision in the Office Versus Operating Room.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2026Article
- Comparison of Surgical Wait Times and Procedure Length in the Management of Postaxial Polydactyly Using Local or General Anesthesia.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2024Article
- A Retrospective Review of Patient-reported Outcomes after Postaxial Polydactyly Ligation and Surgical Excision.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Article
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
Optimal management of pedunculated ulnar polydactyly is not defined. This systematic review summarises objective and patient-reported outcomes following primary treatment. Two authors screened articles for inclusion according to a PROSPERO published protocol. The meta-analysis of adverse events was performed, and a narrative synthesis of satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes was reported. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's ROBINS-I tool. Of 1650 articles identified, 15 were eligible, including 13 single-arm and 2 multi-arm studies. Complications were 6 times as likely with ligation procedures (22%), compared to surgical removal (1%) whether this was performed in the outpatient setting or operating theatre (OR 6.89 [95% CI 1.73, 27]). Parent-reported satisfaction was high for all treatments. Studies were at high risk of bias and low methodological quality. Outcome measurement and follow-up were heterogenous. Well-designed prospective observational and experimental studies are required to inform practice, incorporating clinician and parent-reported outcomes and economic analyses. Level of evidence: I.
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.