ArticleBone & joint open2026
Negotiating research in the Emergency Department: a qualitative study of staff experience of the Distal Radius Acute Fracture Trial CAst versus SPlint (DRAFT3-CASP) RCT for distal radius fractures.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2026. 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.
- Questions, answers and challenges: Summarising the guidance for distal radius fractures.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
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
Aims: We sought to explore staff experience of conducting an orthopaedic trauma randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the Emergency Department (ED). The Distal Radius Acute Fracture Trial: CAst versus SPlint (DRAFT3-CASP) RCT explores the effectiveness of two treatment pathways for patients with a fracture of the distal radius that does not require manipulation. These are, a plaster cast which is removed four to six weeks later in a fracture clinic, and discharge from emergency care with a wrist splint that patients remove themselves. Methods: A total of 20 multidisciplinary staff recruiting to the DRAFT3-CASP RCT from 14 NHS trusts across England took part in a telephone/online qualitative interview. Interviews were informed by Heideggerian Phenomenology and data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: The findings highlight the struggle to undertake research in emergency settings through the overarching theme 'negotiating research'. Staff identified three enablers of research: 1) fitting within clinical practice; 2) finding meaning; and 3) being supported. The fast pace of work and high service demand in emergency care prevented clinical staff from fully engaging with the study. Research delivery staff were vital and supported screening, recruitment, and data collection. Finding meaning in the research question by linking it to patient benefit helped staff to maintain enthusiasm despite the challenges encountered. Conclusion: Negotiating research in the ED is challenging. Protected time is essential for clinical staff to undertake research training and recruitment. Research delivery teams with research expertise are vital for successful recruitment. Increased investment in research delivery staff can ensure patients are given the opportunity to take part in research studies and can promote enthusiasm for research.
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.