ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2025
Radiographic features of Wu et al. type A2 congenital thumb duplication and implications for management: new subtypes and surgical strategies.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. 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.
- Thumb posterior rotation deformity: a neglected deformity in children with thumb polydactyly.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to assess the radiographic features of patients diagnosed with congenital thumb duplication (CTD) type A2 based on the Wu et al. classification, describe the different subtypes of duplications and propose a classification system that permits identifying various surgical strategies. Methods: We evaluated 665 patients (680 thumbs) diagnosed with type A2 CTDs by examining the alignment of the interphalangeal (IP) and metacarpophalangeal (MP) joints of the primary thumb on posteroanterior (PA) radiographs. The classification system has four types: Type I (no deviation); Type II (ulnar deviation); Type III (hypertrophic epiphysis); and Type IV (convergent). Types I-IV were compared to Hung et al.'s system Type A-D (Hypoplastic, Ulnar Deviation, Divergent, and Convergent). Results: Of the 680 fingers, 436 (64.1%) were determined to be Wassel type IV while 244 (35.9%) were classified as Wassel type VII. All of the 436 fingers could be categorized according to the subtypes of the Hung et al. system; in particular, 369 (84.6%) were identified as type B, 52 (11.9%) as type D, and 15 cases (3.4%) as type C. The proposed classification system worked effectively for all CTDs ( Conclusions: The proposed radiographic pathoanatomical system has the potential to improve communication and guide optimal procedure selection for different subtypes of CTD depending on the attachment of the extra digit to the main thumb and the alignment of the interphalangeal and metacarpophalangeal joints of the primary thumb (Wu et al. type A2). Level of evidence: III.
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.