ArticleJournal of hand surgery global online2026
Distal Radius Fracture Classifications in Real Life: Reliability and How They Change Treatment.
Article in Journal of hand surgery global online, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the reliability, clinical utility, and prognostic value of distal radius fracture (DRF) classification systems and to translate current evidence into a decision-oriented framework for everyday care. Methods: We conducted a PRISMA-guided narrative review with structured searches of PubMed and Scopus (January 2010 to September 2025). Eligible adult studies assessed at least one DRF classification (eg, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association, Fernandez, Frykman, Melone, IDEAL) and reported reliability, clinical utility (treatment selection, complications/reoperation), or prognostic associations (patient-reported outcome measures, radiographic restoration). Study selection, extraction, and risk of bias assessment followed predefined procedures; data were synthesized thematically by imaging modality, rater expertise, and category granularity. Results: Interobserver agreement was typically fair-moderate on radiographs; computed tomography yielded modest improvements. Increasing granularity (more categories/subcategories) consistently reduced κ/intraclass correlation coefficient, while a brief rater calibration session improved agreement. Across studies linking taxonomy to care, classification alone rarely changed management once radiographic thresholds of instability (shortening, tilt, intra-articular step-off) and patient factors (age/bone quality, functional demand) were applied. Prognostic associations between subtype and patient-reported outcome measures were inconsistent after adjustment for reduction quality. We operationalize these findings via reliability, morphology, age of bone, patient demands, yielding actionable pathways with explicit quality targets: restoration of radial height and tilt, intra-articular step-off ≤2 mm, and early motion. Conclusions: The DRF classifications remain valuable as a shared language and research scaffold, but their stand-alone reliability and prognostic power are limited. A pragmatic, reliability, morphology, age of bone, patient demands, yielding actionable pathway-based approach integrates classification with instability thresholds and patient factors to support auditable, evidence-based decisions. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic V.
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.