Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38306099›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2024

Topology-Optimized Splints vs Casts for Distal Radius Fractures: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Honghong Ma, Beite Ruan, Jian Li, Jiahui Zhang, Changgui Wu, Hao Tian, Yichen Zhao, Debing Feng, Wei Yan, Xiaobing Xi

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Dorsoradial vs. circular cast for distal radius fractures: a retrospective comparative cohort study.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Honghong MaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Key Laboratory for Prevention and Treatment of Bone and Joint Diseases, Shanghai Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Beite RuanDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Key Laboratory for Prevention and Treatment of Bone and Joint Diseases, Shanghai Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Jian LiClinical Research Center, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Jiahui ZhangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Key Laboratory for Prevention and Treatment of Bone and Joint Diseases, Shanghai Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Changgui WuDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Key Laboratory for Prevention and Treatment of Bone and Joint Diseases, Shanghai Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Hao TianDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Key Laboratory for Prevention and Treatment of Bone and Joint Diseases, Shanghai Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yichen ZhaoDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Key Laboratory for Prevention and Treatment of Bone and Joint Diseases, Shanghai Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Debing FengDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Key Laboratory for Prevention and Treatment of Bone and Joint Diseases, Shanghai Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Wei YanDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Key Laboratory for Prevention and Treatment of Bone and Joint Diseases, Shanghai Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Xiaobing XiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Key Laboratory for Prevention and Treatment of Bone and Joint Diseases, Shanghai Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Ruijin Hospital · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CNShanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: To date, there is currently no evidence-based medical support for the efficacy of topology-optimized splints in treating distal radius fractures. Objective: To assess the clinical efficacy and complication rates of topology-optimized splints in the treatment of distal radius fractures after closed manual reduction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 12-week, multicenter, open-label, analyst-blinded randomized clinical trial (comprising a 6-week intervention followed by a 6-week observational phase) was carried out from December 3, 2021, to March 10, 2023, among 110 participants with distal radius fractures. Statistical analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis between June 3 and 30, 2023. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to 2 groups: the intervention group received topology-optimized splint immobilization and the control group received cast immobilization after closed manual reduction for 6weeks. After this period, immobilization was removed, and wrist rehabilitation activities commenced. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the Gartland-Werley (G-W) wrist score at 6 weeks (where higher scores indicate more severe wrist dysfunction). Secondary outcomes encompassed radiographic parameters, visual analog scale scores, swelling degree grade, complication rates, and 3 dimensions of G-W wrist scores. Results: A total of 110 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.1 [12.7] years; 89 women [81%]) enrolled in the clinical trial, and complete outcome measurements were obtained for 101 patients (92%). Median G-W scores at 6 weeks were 15 (IQR, 13-18) for the splint group and 17 (IQR, 13-18) for the cast group (mean difference, -2.0 [95% CI, -3.4 to -0.6]; P = .03), indicating a statistically significant advantage for the splint group. At 12 weeks, no clinically significant differences in G-W scores between the 2 groups were observed. Complication rates, including shoulder-elbow pain and dysfunction and skin irritation, were less common in the splint group (shoulder-elbow pain and dysfunction: risk ratio, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.08-0.93]; P = .03; skin irritation: risk ratio, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.10-0.89]; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this randomized clinical trial suggest that patients with distal radius fractures that were managed with topology-optimized splints had better wrist functional outcomes and fewer complications at 6 weeks compared with those who received casting, with no difference at week 12. Therefore, topology-optimized splints with improved performance have the potential to be an advisable approach in the management of distal radius fractures. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000036480.

Indexed as

Joint DiseasesRadius FracturesWrist FracturesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPainSplintsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID38306099
PMCPMC10837751
OpenAlexW4391486743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.