ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2026
Protocol deviations in distal radius fracture follow-up in a virtual fracture care model.
Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to evaluate protocol adherence in the follow-up of patients with distal radius fractures (DRFs) managed within the Virtual Fracture Care (VFC) model, and to explore predictors and patterns of deviation across VFC pathways.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study at a Dutch level 2 trauma center, including 1,677 adult patients with DRFs managed within VFC from January 2022 to January 2024. Actual follow-up was compared with the follow-up planned during the VFC multidisciplinary team meetings. Deviation from the plan was classified as either more or less follow-up than planned. Multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of deviation, and ED reattendance rates were analyzed for clinical outcomes.
resultsA total of 80.2% of patients deviated from their VFC plan. Non-operative patients (with and without closed reduction) most frequently received less follow-up than planned, while operatively treated patients often received more follow-up. ED reattendance rates were low (2.1%-6.6%), with patients receiving less follow-up having the lowest rates (3.1%).
conclusionHigh non-adherence rates were observed, but most deviations reflected optimal recovery with minimal follow-up, rather than inefficiency. The VFC model provides efficient and safe follow-up care, but there is potential for further optimization through facultative symptom-based follow-up strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41571942What 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.