Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39624597›Full record

ArticleJB & JS open access

Comparing Treatment Outcomes of Eligible Patients Consenting to or Declining Randomization in a Randomized Clinical Trial: A Secondary Analysis of the FISH Trial on Humeral Shaft Fractures.

Thomas Ibounig, Cyrill Suter, Bakir O Sumrein, Antti P Launonen, Tomasz Czuba, Teppo L N Järvinen, Simo Taimela, Mika Paavola, Lasse Rämö, and the FISH Investigators

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Thomas IbounigFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9658-8571
Cyrill SuterFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8383-7479
Bakir O SumreinDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Tampere University Hospital, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8267-8653
Antti P LaunonenDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Tampere University Hospital, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3125-0171
Tomasz CzubaLund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0232-0425
Teppo L N JärvinenFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3713-956X
Simo TaimelaFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6755-2983
Mika PaavolaFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2506-2115
Lasse RämöFinnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics (FICEBO), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4154-8462
and the FISH Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Finnish Shaft of the Humerus (FISH) trial compared open reduction and internal plate fixation (ORIF) with functional bracing in adult patients with displaced, closed humeral shaft fractures. Here, we compare the results of the patients in the randomized clinical trial (RCT [the randomized cohort]) with those of the cohort of patients who were also eligible but declined randomization (the nonrandomized cohort) to investigate if patients' treatment preference was associated with the outcomes during a 2-year follow-up. Methods: A total of 321 patients were treated at 2 university hospitals in Finland between November 2012 and January 2018. Of the 140 eligible patients, 82 were randomized to ORIF or functional bracing. Of the 58 patients declining randomization, 42 consented to participate in a nonrandomized cohort in which the patients were able to choose the treatment method. The primary outcome of this study was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score. Patients in the randomized cohort and the nonrandomized cohort were analyzed separately in 3 groups: those who had (1) initial surgery, (2) successful functional bracing, and (3) late surgery due to failed functional bracing. We used mixed-model, repeated-measures analysis of variance to compare the treatment effect among the 3 groups. Results: In the randomized cohort, 38 patients had an initial surgical procedure. Of the 44 patients randomized to functional bracing, 30 (68%) healed successfully and 14 (32%) underwent a late surgical procedure. In the nonrandomized cohort, 9 patients preferred an initial surgical procedure. Of the 33 patients preferring functional bracing, 26 (79%) healed successfully and 7 (21%) underwent late surgery. The DASH scores in the randomized cohort and the nonrandomized cohort were 6.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3 to 11.4) and 12.3 (95% CI, 0.3 to 24.3) for the initial surgery groups, 6.0 (95% CI, 1.0 to 11.0) and 3.4 (95% CI, 0 to 9.3) for the bracing groups, and 17.5 (95% CI, 10.5 to 24.5) and 20.5 (95% CI, 9.4 to 31.6) for the late surgery groups at 2 years. Conclusions: The results of the randomized cohort and the nonrandomized cohort were comparable and suggest that patients' treatment preferences are not associated with the treatment outcomes of these injuries. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Identifiers

PMID39624597
PMCPMC11596434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.