ArticleRevista brasileira de ortopedia2025
[Surgical and Injection Interventions for Dupuytren's Disease: A Systematic Review Protocol].
Article in Revista brasileira de ortopedia, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of surgical and injection-based interventions for Dupuytren's disease (DD) using systematic review and network meta-analysis methodology. Methods: The current protocol follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines and is registered in The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Randomized controlled trials involving adult patients with DD treated by surgical (e.g., fasciectomy, fasciotomy) or injection-based interventions (e.g., collagenase, corticosteroids) must be included. A comprehensive search must be conducted across MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, IBECS, and trial registries, without language or date restrictions. Two reviewers must perform independent screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (RoB2). Primary outcomes must include functional improvement and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes must include recurrence, range of motion, and pain. Data synthesis should involve random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses, with GRADE used to assess certainty of evidence. Subgroup analyses should explore heterogeneity based on clinical and methodological variables. Results: This proposal of review aims to generate comparative estimates of effectiveness and safety across all eligible interventions, incorporating both direct and indirect evidence. Functional outcomes must be synthesized using a predefined hierarchy of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and treatments were ranked based on efficacy and safety profiles. Conclusion: This systematic review aims to fill current evidence gaps by comparing all relevant interventions for DD, supporting clinical decision-making through robust synthesis of functional and safety outcomes.
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.