ArticleEFORT open reviews2024
Bias in published randomized trials that compare collagenase injection with percutaneous needle fasciotomy in the treatment of Dupuytren disease: a systematic review.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 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.
- Letter to the editor regarding 'Bias in published randomized trials that compare collagenase injection with percutaneous needle fasciotomy in the treatment of Dupuytren disease: a systematic review' by Eckerdal et al.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- Appropriate randomization, adherence to Ethics board approved trial protocol and transparent reporting of amendments and exclusions define RCT integrity.EFORT open reviews · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Controversy exists regarding the comparative efficacy of collagenase injection and percutaneous needle fasciotomy in the treatment of Dupuytren contracture. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared the two treatment methods have reported results mostly implying similar treatment efficacy, durability, and complications. We aimed to review these RCTs regarding methodical quality and risk of bias. Methods: We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library databases up to May 2023. All RCTs comparing collagenase injection with needle fasciotomy were included. Eligible articles were reviewed by two researchers, of whom one was blinded to each article's title, authors, year of publication, journal, and source of the studies. To assess methodical quality, we used the modified Jadad scale yielding a score of 0 (lowest quality) to 5 (highest quality). We assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). Results: Five studies were eligible, comprising 204 patients treated with collagenase injection and 209 patients treated with needle fasciotomy. The modified Jadad score ranged from 1 to 2 points in the five studies, and the overall risk of bias was high in all studies. Pretrial protocols could be retrieved for only two studies, revealing important discrepancies with the published articles. Conclusion: The published RCTs that have compared collagenase injection with needle fasciotomy in the treatment of Dupuytren contracture demonstrate a high risk of bias.
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.