Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37873529›Full record

ArticleThe archives of bone and joint surgery2023

Comparisons of Routine Initial Operative Fracture Treatment and Later Reconstructive Treatment are not Interesting.

Tarek Salibi, David Ring, Michel P J Van Den Bekerom

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The archives of bone and joint surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 73% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Tarek SalibiThe University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
David RingThe University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
Michel P J Van Den BekeromShoulder and Elbow Unit, Joint Research, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
The University of Texas at Austin · USJoint Research Centre · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies that compare routine immediate operative treatment of fractures with selective later reconstructive surgery for malunion or nonunion may be misleading because it discounts the people who did well with nonoperative treatment. We identified 20 studies comparing routine operative fracture treatment and later reconstruction in the hip, clavicle, proximal humerus, elbow, and distal radius. Fifteen of 20 studies favored immediate operative treatment on the basis of lower reoperation rates, fewer complications, better patient reported outcome scores, and higher satisfaction. Five studies were neutral, and none favored delayed reconstruction for malunion or nonunion. These findings emphasize the potential benefits of routine early surgery and raise questions about the validity of studies comparing different timings of fracture treatment.

Indexed as

ClavicleDelayedEarlyHipProximal humerusSurgeryWrist

Identifiers

PMID37873529
PMCPMC10590483
OpenAlexW4387893016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.