ReviewThe archives of bone and joint surgery2024
Immobilization Period for the Non-Operative Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in The archives of bone and joint surgery, 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.
- Nonoperative treatment of proximal humerus fractures in the elderly.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Review
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
Objectives: Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are common fractures in the elderly and are typically treated conservatively with immobilization. However, there is no consensus on whether to choose early or late conventional mobilization, taking their outcomes into account. This paper reviews comparative studies on the clinical outcomes of one- and three-week immobilization periods in terms of limb function, pain intensity, and complications following the adoption of the non-surgical treatment of PHF. Methods: The current systematic review started with searching PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on PHF patients to compare the clinical outcomes between patients receiving the one-week mobilization (early mobilization) and those receiving the three-week mobilization (late mobilization). We also performed a meta-analysis to compare the two groups' limb function and pain levels at three and six months of follow-up. Results: Five of the seven RCTs had adequate data to be included in the meta-analysis. The quantitative results showed that the early mobilized patients had improved limb function at three [weighted mean difference (WMD): 5.15 (CI 95%: 0.68-9.62)] and six [WMD: 3.51 (CI 95%: 0.43-6.60)] months, but not at 12 months of follow-up. At either three, six, or 12 months, there was no difference in pain intensity between the two groups. Conclusion: This review supports the adoption of early mobilization at one week for the non-operative management of PHFs. However, to compare the long-term effects, more clinical trials with longer follow-ups are needed.
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.