ReviewJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2024
Comparison of efficacy and safety of USG-guided versus blind pulley release for trigger finger: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of the USG-guided vs blind pulley release (PR) for Trigger Finger by performing a meta-analysis of all relevant studies in the published literature. Methods: A thorough and methodical search of the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was carried out. Review Manager Software (RevMan) 5.4.1 was used to analyze the extracted data, and the results were displayed as forest plots with matching 95 % confidence intervals. Results: The primary efficacy outcome i.e. residual triggering was significantly lower in USG-guided PR as compared to blind PR with a risk ratio of 0.16 (95 % CI 0.03-0.87), p = 0.03. The primary safety outcome i.e., percentage of complications was lower in the USG-guided procedure group, although the result was not statistically significant with a risk ratio of 0.25 (95 % CI 0.05-1.16), p = 0.08 with I Conclusion: When compared to blind PR, ultrasound-guided A1 PR for trigger finger was proven to be a safer and more economical method.
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.