SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024
Is reduction necessary in overriding metaphyseal distal radius fractures in children under 11 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.
Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of pediatric distal radius fractures - A systematic review and meta-analysis.SICOT-J · 2026Article
- Post-operative imaging in pediatric distal radius fractures: When tradition meets evidence.World journal of orthopedics · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the necessity of reduction in the treatment of overriding metaphyseal distal radius fractures (DRF) in children under 11 years.
methodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to retrieve studies published from inception to 2023. Two reviewers independently screened for studies with observational or randomized control design comparing two treatments for overriding metaphyseal DRF in patients under 11 years: simple casting without reduction (SC group) versus closed reduction plus casting or pin fixation (CRC/F group); with varying outcomes reported (CRD471761). The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.
resultsOut of 3,024 screened studies, three met the inclusion criteria, 180 children (mean age 7.1 ± 0.9 years) with overriding metaphyseal DRF: SC-group (n = 79) versus CRC/F-group (n = 101). Both treatment groups achieved 100% fracture consolidation without requiring further manipulation. The SC-group showed significantly fewer complications (mean difference [MD] 0.08; 95% CI [0.01, 0.53]; I2 = 22%; P < 0.009) and trends towards better sagittal alignment (MD 5.11; 95% CI [11.92, 1.71]; I2 = 94%; P < 0.14), less reinterventions (MD 0.31; 95% CI [0.01, 8.31]; P < 0.48), and fewer patients with motion limitation at the end of follow-up (MD 0.23; 95% CI [0.03, 1.98]; P < 0.18), although these findings were not statistically significant.
conclusionsDespite a limited number of studies comparing SC versus CRC/F in overriding DRF in children under 11 years, this study suggests that anatomical reduction is not necessary. Treating these fractures with SC, even when presenting with an overriding position, leads to reduced complications, shows a trend towards fewer reinterventions, improved sagittal alignment, and less limitation in patient motion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Systematic review of Level-III studies.
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.