ArticleHand (New York, N.Y.)2026
Access to Orthopedic Care for Deaf Patients With Distal Radius Fractures.
Article in Hand (New York, N.Y.), 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
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to determine whether deaf patients experience barriers to orthopedic care compared with hearing patients through evaluating time to appointment, appointment denial rates, and interpreter availability.
methodsResearchers called 132 randomly selected US orthopedic offices to request appointments for fictitious patients with distal radius fractures. Each office was called twice on the same weekday over different weeks-once for a hearing patient and once for a deaf patient communicating in American Sign Language (ASL). The primary outcome was time to appointment. Secondary analysis included provider type, ASL interpreter availability, interpreter modality, and requests for family interpretation. Differences in time to appointment with
resultsData from 132 clinics (63 academic and 69 community/private practices) were analyzed. The time to appointment for patients across all regions, practices, and providers was 3.9 days. Deaf patients experienced significantly longer wait times for physician appointments (4.96 vs 3.32 days,
conclusionsDistal radius fractures are common, and evidence suggests prompt care results in better outcomes and quicker return-to-work time. This study demonstrates statistically but not necessarily clinically significant delays for deaf patients seeking surgical appointments with MDs and reliance on ad hoc interpreters.
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.