ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2024
Predicting Metacarpal Anatomic Lengths via Adjacent Metacarpals.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 2024. 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.
- Design and Validation of a Hand Interossei Muscle Dynamometer (HIMDNA) for Finger Abduction and Adduction Strength Measurement.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to generate validated prediction rules for metacarpal lengths that can be applied without the need for computation tools to assist with restoration of anatomic length after fracture and utilizes only ipsilateral metacarpals. Methods: The anatomic lengths of all hand bones in 50 hands (25 men, 25 women) were used along with linear regression subset analysis to determine which metacarpals are the most predictive of each other. The most predictive metacarpals were then used to generate simple addition and subtraction prediction rules via simplifying the linear equation generated with linear regression analysis. Those rules were then applied to subsequent test cases, and percent accuracy within various cutoffs were analyzed and compared to the accuracy when using the contralateral side. Results: The prediction rules were generated and were found to be identical for both men and women. When applied to the test cases, the estimated metacarpal lengths were within 3 mm of the actual value in 97.5% of the cases for women and 90% of the cases for men compared to 95% when using the contralateral side. Conclusion: The simple additional and subtraction rules generated in this analysis were as good as or superior to using the contralateral side in all cases for women and were as good as or superior to using the contralateral side in for metacarpals 3-5 for men. Clinical Relevance: Using these simple estimating rules may be superior to using the contralateral side in most cases and provides a secondary method for determining anatomic lengths when contralateral radiographs are not available or when contralateral radiographs were obtained in different enough conditions such that the lengths may not be representative of the hand of interest.
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.