ArticleBone & joint open2026
Can you FORCE research implementation? A PERUKI survey to evaluate knowledge translation of the FORCE study.
Article in Bone & joint open, 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
Aims: To assess the uptake of the Forearm Fracture Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) trial findings into clinical practice, and to identify the influence of targeted dissemination tools on implementation. Methods: A cross-sectional electronic survey was distributed via the Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland (PERUKI) network. The survey captured data on clinician awareness of the FORCE trial, current management of paediatric torus fracture, the use of dissemination materials, and perceived barriers and enablers to implementation. Results: A total of 113 responses were analyzed. Most respondents (84.5%) were aware of the FORCE trial. Following publication of the findings, 54.0% reported managing torus fractures in line with trial recommendations - offering a soft bandage or no immobilization, compared with 1.8% prior to the trial. Clinicians involved in delivering the trial were significantly more likely to adopt the recommended management (p = 0.021) and follow-up approach (p = 0.004). Of respondents, 43.4% reported encountering barriers to implementation, the most common being colleague or parent expectations. Peer-to-peer influence (40.8%) and the use of FORCE dissemination tools (38.8%) were the most frequently cited enablers. Among those using the dissemination tools, 79.5% implemented the recommended management compared with 18.2% who did not (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The findings of the FORCE trial have been adopted across paediatric Emergency Departments in the UK, representing a substantial shift from pretrial practice. Active involvement in research, peer influence, and practical dissemination tools were key drivers of this change. Publication alone appeared insufficient; implementation required engagement, ownership, and resources designed for real-world use. When these were present, practice changed most consistently - supporting the theory that you can FORCE research implementation.
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.