SynthesisMedicine2025
TCM splints versus internal fixation for distal radius fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal treatment of distal radius fractures (DRFs) remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) splints and internal fixation in the treatment of DRFs.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted for randomized controlled trials comparing TCM splints with internal fixation for DRFs using databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wanfang Database, and VIP Database. Following literature screening, data extraction, and evaluation of the risk of bias, data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 14.2 software. The quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.
resultsEighteen studies comprising 1682 patients with DRFs were included in this analysis. No significant differences were observed in clinical effective rate, volar tilt, radial inclination, radial height, visual analog scale score, or complication rate between the treatment of TCM splints and internal fixation for DRFs. In addition, for clinical effective rate, subgroup analysis based on different evaluation criteria showed no significant difference between the groups. TCM splints demonstrated advantages in fracture healing time.
conclusionTCM splints and internal fixation methods are similar in most clinical outcomes in the treatment of DRFs. However, TCM splints exhibited superior performance in terms of fracture healing time, making them a preferable option. Nonetheless, TCM splints are not a replacement for internal fixation, and internal fixation should still be performed when there are surgical indications. When considering internal fixation surgery, it is critical to thoroughly evaluate the risks and benefits. The optimal treatment plan should be tailored based on the patient's specific needs, individual circumstances, and available clinical expertise.
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.