Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38349719›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2024

Let's Agree to Disagree on Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment for Distal Radius Fractures in Older People: Protocol for a Prospective International Multicenter Cohort Study.

Nicole Maria van Veelen, Bryan J M van de Wall, Ruben J Hoepelman, Frank F A IJpma, Björn-Christian Link, Reto Babst, Rolf H H Groenwold, Detlef van der Velde, Nadine Diwersi, Mark van Heijl and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Preventing confounding in observational studies in orthopedic trauma surgery through expert panels: a systematic review.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025
    Pooled it
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

12 authors.

Nicole Maria van VeelenDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9159-5382
Bryan J M van de WallDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1882-8626
Ruben J HoepelmanDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2298-244X
Frank F A IJpmaDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9420-2732
Björn-Christian LinkDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3289-6935
Reto BabstDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7606-1358
Rolf H H GroenwoldDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Universitair Medisch Centrum Leiden, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9238-6999
Detlef van der VeldeDepartment of Trauma Surgery, St. Antonius Ziekenhuis, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2653-5989
Nadine DiwersiDepartment of General and Trauma Surgery, Kantonsspital Obwalden, Sarnen, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0116-902X
Mark van HeijlDepartment of Surgery, Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5896-744X
R Marijn HouwertDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3497-659X
Frank J P BeeresDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7277-3438

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDistal radius fractures are the most frequently encountered fractures in Western societies, typically affecting patients aged 50 years and older. Although this is a common injury, the best treatment for these fractures in older patients is still under debate.

objectiveThis prospective study aims to compare the outcome of operatively and nonoperatively treated distal radius fractures in the older population. Only patients with distal radius fractures for which equipoise regarding the optimal treatment exists will be included.

methodsThis prospective international multicenter observational cohort study will be designed as a natural experiment. Natural experiments are observational studies in which treatment allocation is determined by factors outside the control of the investigators but also (largely) independent of patient characteristics. Patients aged 65 years and older with an acute distal radius fracture will be considered for inclusion. Treatment allocation (operative vs nonoperative) will be based on the local preferences of the treating hospital either in Switzerland or the Netherlands. Hence, the process governing treatment allocation resembles that of randomization. Patients will be identified after treatment has been initiated. Based on the radiographs and baseline information of the patient, an expert panel of 6 certified trauma surgeons from 2 regions will provide their treatment recommendation. Only patients for whom the experts disagree on treatment recommendations will ultimately be included in the study (ie, for whom there is a clinical equipoise). For these patients, both operative and nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures are viable, and treatment choice is predominantly determined by personal or local preference. The primary outcome will be the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include the Physical Activity Score for the Elderly, the EQ questionnaire, pain, the living situation, range of motion, complications, and radiological outcomes. By including outcomes such as living situation and the Physical Activity Score for the Elderly, which are not relevant for younger cohorts, valuable information to tailor treatment to the needs of the older population can be gained. According to the sample size collection, which was based on the minimal important clinical difference of the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation, 92 patients will have to be included, with at least 46 patients in each treatment group.

resultsEnrollment began in July 2023 and is expected to continue until summer 2024. The final follow-up will be 2 years after the last patient is included.

conclusionsAlthough many trials on this topic have previously been published, there remains an ongoing debate regarding the optimal treatment for distal radius fractures in older patients. This observational study, which will use a fairly new methodological study design, will provide further information on treatment outcomes for older patients with distal radius fractures for which to date equipoise exists regarding the optimal treatment. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/52917.

Indexed as

distal radius fracturenatural experimentobservational studyolder patientsstudy protocol

Identifiers

PMID38349719
PMCPMC10900084

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.