ArticleBone & joint open2022
A systematic review of outcome reporting in clinical trials of distal tibia and ankle fractures : the need for a core outcome set.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A matched comparison of suprapatellar and infrapatellar approaches in intramedullary nailing for distal tibial fractures: a study of alignment including rotation and mid-term outcomes.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Article
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
aimsTo describe outcome reporting variation and trends in non-pharmacological randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of distal tibia and/or ankle fractures.
methodsFive electronic databases and three clinical trial registries were searched (January 2000 to February 2022). Trials including patients with distal tibia and/or ankle fractures without concomitant injuries were included. One reviewer conducted all searches, screened titles and abstracts, assessed eligibility, and completed data extraction; a random 10% subset were independently assessed and extracted by a second reviewer at each stage. All extracted outcomes were mapped to a modified version of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework. The quality of outcome reporting (reproducibility) was assessed.
resultsOverall, 105 trials (n = 16 to 669 participants) from 27 countries were included. Trials compared surgical interventions (n = 62), post-surgical management options (n = 17), rehabilitative interventions (n = 14), surgical versus non-surgical interventions (n = 6), and pre-surgical management strategies (n = 5). In total, 888 outcome assessments were reported across seven domains: 263 assessed body structure or function (85.7% of trials), 136 activities (68.6% of trials), 34 participation (23.8% of trials), 159 health-related quality of life (61.9% of trials), 247 processes of care (80% of trials), 21 patient experiences (15.2% of trials), and 28 economic impact (8.6% of trials). From these, 337 discrete outcomes were described. Outcome reporting was inconsistent across trials. The quality of reporting varied widely (reproducibility ranged 4.8% patient experience to 100% complications).
conclusionSubstantial heterogeneity in outcome selection, assessment methods, and reporting quality were described. Despite the large number of outcomes, few are reported across multiple trials. Most outcomes are clinically focused, with little attention to the long-term consequences important to patients. Poor reporting quality reduces confidence in data quality, inhibiting data synthesis by which to inform care decisions. Outcome reporting guidance and standardization, which captures the outcomes that matter to multiple stakeholders, are urgently required.Cite this article:
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.