Trial reportBMJ global health2025
A pilot study on the acceptability and safety of collaborative triage and treatment with traditional bonesetters for extremity fracture patients: a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial in rural Tanzania.
Trial report in BMJ global health, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFracture patients in resource-limited settings frequently attend traditional bonesetters (TBSs), often resulting in non/malunion or infectious complications. Intersectoral collaboration between formal healthcare and TBSs has the potential to make this practice safer but has never been tested previously. This pilot study assesses the acceptability and safety of collaborative fracture management (CFM).
methodsWithin a pilot stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial, we included three TBSs (clusters) and their extremity fracture patients from Rorya district, Tanzania. We randomly assigned TBS timepoints to transition from standard TBS care (control) to CFM (intervention). CFM consisted of X-ray imaging, analgesia and guideline-based discussion between a doctor and TBS to guide definitive fracture management. Patient follow-up was at 1, 3 and 6 months postinclusion. In an intention-to-treat analysis, we estimated average treatment effects through ordinary least squares and Poisson regression for primary outcomes of protocol adherence, patient satisfaction and number of complications. The trial is registered at the Pan-African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR202307910320431) and is completed.
resultsBetween 28 August 2023 and 28 April 2024, we included 21 intervention (9 females, 12 males) and 31 control patients (11 females, 20 males). Protocol adherence was 66.7% in the intervention group, with prohibitive cost and fear of surgery being the most common reasons for non-adherence. Mean satisfaction, quality of life and disability did not differ statistically between groups. Intervention patients had 0.072 less complications than control patients (95% CI -0.11 to -0.031, p=0.001), corresponding with a number-needed-to-treat of 13.9 patients to prevent one complication.
conclusionOur results suggest CFM is acceptable and safe to patients and TBSs, offering a model to improve fracture care in resource-limited settings worldwide. To improve the model's efficacy, additional strategies are necessary to overcome socioeconomical and educational barriers to surgery. Future research could investigate the generalisability of our findings in other settings.
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.