ArticleJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2026
A cross-sectional survey comparing management of proximal humerus fractures across a multinational upper limb specialist surgeon panel.
Article in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are the most common traumatic bony injury to the shoulder. There is lack of consensus in the optimal method of management for fractures with varying morphologies/patterns. This study assesses treatment choices for 3- or 4-part PHFs across surgeons from a multinational panel, focusing on operative versus non-operative strategies and whether inter-surgeon agreement exists within and between countries. Methods: A prospective cross-sectional survey was completed by a cohort of consultant/attending-level shoulder surgeons from the United Kingdom, United States, India, and Australia. Treatment decisions for 20 individual cases were assessed with standardization of clinical data and imaging. The case range included patients with a breadth of demographics for age (20-80 years) and varying comorbidities including a comprehensive range of fracture morphologies for 3/4-part Neer PHFs with increasing severity, fragmentation, tuberosity displacement, and head split or dislocations. Statistical analysis was performed using a mixed-effects logistic regression model and Krippendorff's alpha. Statistical significance was set at Results: Seventy-five surgeons worldwide responded to the study. There was surgeon representation from Asia (India, 26/75, 34.7%), Europe (UK, 24/75, 32.0%), North America (US, 18/75, 24.0%), and Oceania (Australia, 7/75, 9.3%). Thirty-nine (39/75, 52%) surgeons had over 10 years of experience in treating PHFs. International agreement was low between surgeons (K-A 0.238) regarding overall decision-making. After adjustment for surgeon country and patient demographics, patient age (<65 vs. ≥ 65 years) was not independently associated with the likelihood of recommending operative management (estimate 0.34, Conclusion: This study provides an insight into the international variation among surgeons where healthcare characteristics and patient factors contribute to the decision-making processes involved in the management of PHFs. Further research is required to develop standardized, evidence-based guidelines on the management of PHFs.
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.