ArticleJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2021
Analyzing outcomes after proximal humerus fractures in patients <65 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2021. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There has been an increasing amount of interest and research examining best practices for the treatment of proximal humerus fractures (PHF). Recent, high-level randomized control trials and many retrospective cohort studies have failed to demonstrate clear benefit of surgical management for these injuries especially in the elderly (generally defined as ≥65 years old). There is a paucity of research available on outcomes after surgical and nonsurgical treatment of proximal humerus fractures in adults younger than 65 years, and comparative data are almost nonexistent. The purpose of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the available data to determine if the literature supports surgical management over conservative treatment for PHFs in adults younger than 65 years. Materials and methods: Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review of proximal humerus fractures was performed using MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases. Studies were included if they reported useable data such as outcome measures for adult patients younger than 65 years. Quality of nonrandomized studies was assessed utilizing the MINORs criteria. Extracted data were analyzed using statistical software with Results: Six studies were included in the study for data extraction and statistical analysis. When comparing Constant Scores (CS) and Oxford Shoulder Scores (OSS) of operatively and nonoperatively treated adult patients aged less than 65 years, no statistical differences were found. Furthermore, no statistical differences in CS or OSS were found comparing elderly patients (defined as ≥65 years) and adult patients (defined as 18 to <65 years). Analysis of DASH outcome data did show statistical differences of the three cohorts (nonoperative <65, operative <65, and operative ≥65). Thus, only the limb-specific (not joint specific) outcome score (DASH) was found to be significantly different upon data analysis. Differences in shoulder-specific outcome scores (OSS and CS) failed to meet significance. Conclusion: The available literature does not demonstrate a clear clinical benefit of operative treatment over nonoperative management of proximal humeral fractures in adult patients younger than 65 years. These results challenge the widely accepted practice of choosing surgical treatment in adult patients younger than 65 years with PHFs.
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.