SynthesisThe Iowa orthopaedic journal2023
Early Versus Delayed Surgery for Midshaft Clavicle Fractures: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in The Iowa orthopaedic journal, 2023. 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.
- The effects of a Virtual Fracture Care review protocol on secondary healthcare utilization in trauma patients requiring semi-acute surgery: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- Screw Stress Distribution in a Clavicle Fracture with Plate Fixation: A Finite Element Analysis.Bioengineering (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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Orthopaedic surgeons debate the timing of and necessity for surgical intervention when treating displaced midshaft clavicle fractures (MCFs). This systematic review evaluates the available literature regarding functional outcomes, complication rates, nonunion, and reoperation rates between patients undergoing early versus delayed surgical management of MCFs. Methods: Search strategies were applied in PubMed (Medline), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Elsevier), Sport Discus (EBSCO), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley). Following an initial screening and full-text review, demographic and study outcome data was extracted for comparison between the early fixation and delayed fixation studies. Results: Twenty-one studies were identified for inclusion. This resulted in 1158 patients in the early group and 44 in the delayed. Demographics were similar between groups except for a higher percentage of males in the early group (81.6% vs. 61.4%) and longer time to surgery in the delayed group (4.6 days vs. 14.5 months). Disability of the arm, shoulder, and hand scores (3.6 vs. 13.0) and Constant-Murley scores (94.0 vs. 86.0) were better in the early group. Percentages of initial surgeries resulting in complication (33.8% vs. 63.6%), nonunion (1.2% vs. 11.4%), and nonroutine reoperation (15.8% vs. 34.1%) were higher in the delayed group. Conclusion: Outcomes of nonunion, reoperation, complications, DASH scores, and CM scores favor early surgery over delayed surgery for MCFs. However, given the small cohort of delayed patients who still achieved moderate outcomes, we recommend a shared decision-making style for treatment recommendations regarding individual patients with MCFs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37383857PMC10296473What 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.