Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39346799›Full record

ReviewShoulder & elbow2024

Rehabilitation protocols in proximal humerus fracture management: A systematic review.

Ashrita Budharaju, Keegan M Hones, Kevin A Hao, Jonathan O Wright, Catherine J Fedorka, Scott G Kaar, Kamal I Bohsali, Thomas W Wright, Matthew R Patrick, Joseph J King

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Shoulder & elbow, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

10 authors.

Ashrita BudharajuCollege of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Keegan M HonesCollege of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9444-9145
Kevin A HaoCollege of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0682-8381
Jonathan O WrightDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5788-3463
Catherine J FedorkaCooper Bone and Joint Institute, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ, USA.
Scott G KaarDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, St Louis University, St Louis, MO, USA.
Kamal I BohsaliJacksonville Orthopaedic Institute, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Thomas W WrightDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Matthew R PatrickDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Joseph J KingDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9201-9408

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are relatively common, although optimal rehabilitation is unknown. This review aims to characterize the published rehabilitation regimens utilized for PHFs. Methods: A systematic review was performed per PRISMA guidelines, utilizing PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane. All studies reporting PHF rehabilitation protocols after nonoperative management, open reduction internal fixation with a plate, or intramedullary nailing were included. Results: Forty articles comprising 3507 patients (66% female, weighted mean age 63.5 years) were included. Substantial variability was present regardless of management. Rehabilitation modalities reported were: sling use in 34 cohorts, most commonly for three weeks; pendulum exercises in 21 cohorts, most commonly starting at post-intervention day 1; post-intervention passive range of motion (ROM) for 30 cohorts, most commonly starting at two days; active-ROM in eight cohorts, most commonly starting at three weeks; active-assisted ROM for 21 cohorts, most commonly starting at three weeks; unlimited ROM for 20 cohorts, most commonly at 4 or 6 weeks; non-weight-bearing for six cohorts, most commonly for six weeks; strengthening for 16 cohorts, most commonly at six weeks; removal of all restrictions for nine cohorts, most commonly starting at six weeks. Conclusions: Published rehabilitation protocols for PHFs vary considerably regardless of management. Future studies comparing methods of management need to consider the influence of postoperative rehabilitation protocol heterogeneity when aggregating data from multiple sites. Level of Evidence: IV.

Indexed as

armconservative treatmentHumeralopen reduction and internal fixationphysical therapyshoulderupper extremity

Identifiers

PMID39346799
PMCPMC11437559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.