ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2024
A proposed paradigm shift in the management of distal radius fractures.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emergency Medicine Management of Distal Radius and Ulna Fractures: Narrative Review.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Analyzing the Role of Surgical Management of Initial Fractures of the Distal Radius in Refracture among Elderly Koreans: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2025Article
- Isolated Ulnar Shortening Osteotomy for a Distal Radius Malunion in a Young Female: A Cosmetic and Functional Success Story.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: Distal radius fractures represent a remarkable orthopaedic entity. Most distal radius fractures can be treated conservatively with closed reduction and immobilisation with satisfactory results, while open reduction and internal fixation is reserved for displaced fractures. Our objective was to propose a paradigm shift in the management of distal radius fractures. Methods: A literature search of management of distal radius fractures was conducted. PubMed and Cochrane databases were used for the search. English articles with open access or institutional subscription availability were included. Key content and finding: Current literature supports operative management for younger active patients with defined radiographic inclusion parameters, but among the elderly there is little evidence of benefit. Most orthopaedic literature defines "elderly" as patients above 65 years of age. Non-surgical treatment for fractures of the distal radius tends to yield satisfactory functional results, and these favourable outcomes do not necessarily align with normal radiological parameters. For the minority of patients that have symptomatic malunion, corrective osteotomy is a good option to improve the function provided the symptoms can be clearly attributed to the malalignment. Conclusion: The vast majority of distal radius fractures can be managed conservatively. Further studies are recommended to explore the feasibility of advocating for universal conservative treatment for patients with less functional demands while still having the option of staged surgery in the form of corrective osteotomy where there is symptomatic malunion amenable to anatomical correction. Future research should also aim to identify patients who would benefit most from surgical intervention by considering the type of functional recovery needed, rather than relying predominantly on the patient's chronological age as the determining factor in the decision-making process.
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.