ReviewCureus2024
Short Versus Regular Periods of Cast Immobilization for Distal Radial Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Wrist Joint Restriction: Impact on Foot Pressure, Center of Gravity, and the Role of the Dominant Hand.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current research on the recommended durations for cast immobilization in adults with distal radial fractures (DRFs) lacks a clear consensus or definitive conclusion. The standard practice involves casting immobilization for five to six weeks. The debate revolves around the potential benefits of shorter periods (three to four weeks) without compromising patient outcomes. While previous research has delved into this subject through systematic reviews, our study stands out by conducting a meta-analysis, aiming for a more precise understanding of whether short or regular cast immobilization duration proves more effective for treating DRFs. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies. The focus was on comparing the outcomes of DRFs between short (three to four weeks) and regular (five to six weeks) periods of cast immobilization. The evaluated parameters include the shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire (quick (q) DASH); patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE); visual analog scale (VAS) score after cast removal; total complications; and the occurrence of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). Data synthesis employed the random-effects models, presenting the results as mean difference (MD) and weighted odds ratio (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We included three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 252 patients, of whom 125 (49.6%) were immobilized in a cast for three to four weeks. The average age of participants was 61.20 years, and the follow-up duration was one year. The QDASH scores were significantly lower at 12 weeks (MD -6.72; 95% CI -10.76 to -2.69; p = 0.001), six months (MD -4.46; 95% CI -7.42 to -1.50; p = 0.003), and one year (MD -4.89; 95% CI -7.45 to -2.33; p = 0.0002) in patients treated with short periods compared to those with regular periods. The PRWE scores at six months (MD -2.33; 95% CI -8.10 to 3.43; p=0.43) did not significantly differ between groups. Also, the PRWE scores were significantly lower at one year (MD -4.93; 95% CI -9.03 to -0.82; p = 0.02) in the shorter cast-immobilization-period group. There were no significant differences in VAS score after cast removal, total complications, or CRPS. The meta-analysis of RCTs on DRFs reveals that shorter periods of cast immobilization lead to better patient-reported functional outcomes (qDASH and PRWE). This suggests a potential benefit of reducing the immobilization duration for DRF patients, offering clinicians valuable insights for improved patient care and informed decision-making in clinical practice.
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.