MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4210475710 · doi:10.1542/gr.45-5-51

Follow-Up Care of Distal Radius Buckle Fractures

2021· article· en· W4210475710 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueAAP Grand Rounds · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBone fractures and treatments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBuckleMedicineRADIUSIconRandomized controlled trialDistal radius fractureSurgeryComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Source: Colaco K, Willan A, Stimec J, et al. Home management versus primary care physician follow-up of patients with distal radius buckle fractures: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2021;77(2):163-173; doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2020.07.039Investigators from the University of Toronto conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess outcomes associated with home management versus physician follow-up in children with distal buckle fractures. Children were eligible if they were 5-17 years old and were diagnosed in the study ED within the previous 3 days with a distal radius buckle fracture during the 2018-2019 study period. The standard management for all patients diagnosed with a distal buckle fracture at the study ED is a removable splint. All participants completed a demographic survey at enrollment as well as a baseline modified Activities Scale for Kids-38 (ASKp38) scale that assessed wrist function the week before injury (with the average score for patients with no disabilities being 95%).Participants were randomized to either removal of the splint at home with physician follow-up as needed or to see their primary care physician 1-2 weeks after the ED visit. All participants were advised to wear the splint continuously (except for bathing) for the first week and then as needed to manage pain or swelling symptoms. All participants were advised to restrict activities that could lead to reinjury for 6 weeks.The primary outcome was ASKp38 scores at 3 weeks post-ED visit, assessed via telephone. A secondary outcome was health care resource use and parental expenses related to the child’s injury, assessed by parent report at 3 and 6 weeks post-ED visit and medical records. Total patient health care costs were estimated by multiplying health care resources data by corresponding unit prices. The investigators assessed outcomes by allocation arm using an intention-to-treat analysis.There were 149 participants enrolled, 73 in the home management group and 76 in the primary care physician follow-up group. Follow-up was completed for 90.4% of participants in the home management group and 88.2% of the physician follow-up group at 3 weeks, and 89% and 86.8%, respectively, at 6 weeks. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics or baseline ASKp38 scores. Mean ASKp38 scores at 3 weeks were similar between both groups (95.4% and 95.9% in the home management and physician follow-up groups, respectively). Total mean healthcare and parent costs in the physician follow-up group were greater than in the home management group ($149.10 vs $26.80, respectively).The investigators conclude that home removal of splints for distal buckle fractures is noninferior to physician follow-up and less costly.Dr Bechtel has disclosed no financial relationship relevant to this commentary. This commentary does not contain a discussion of an unapproved/investigative use of a commercial product/device.Buckle (torus) fractures of the distal radius are the most common fractures in children.1 There are many ways these fractures can be managed, as they are very stable and have an excellent prognosis. Primary care physicians are becoming the standard of care for follow-up of buckle fractures instead of orthopedic or fracture clinic follow-up. Primary care physician follow-up for distal forearm buckle fractures has demonstrated excellent recovery and management mainly based on patient symptoms rather than frequent radiographic follow-up common to orthopedists or fracture clinics.2 The current investigators sought to determine whether symptomatic home management versus primary care provider follow-up of torus fractures had equivalent functional outcomes in children managed with a removable splint.Indeed, the authors did find that home management was just as efficacious as primary care provider follow-up in terms of functional use scores at 3 weeks. Notably, children who were managed at home had even lower costs and fewer follow-up radiographs obtained than children who had follow-up with their primary care provider. There are, however, 2 significant limitations of the current study that should be noted. The first is that most of the population had post-secondary school education and telephone and electronic access and had a primary care provider. Thus, extrapolating the results to a different population (eg, lower parental education, lack of telephone access or a primary care provider) is not possible at this time. The second limitation is that the population was also primarily English-speaking, so it is likely not practical to expect similar results in a non-English speaking population of caregivers based on the current study.In English-speaking families with telephone and electronic access and a primary care physician, at-home management of children with torus fractures with a removable splint is less costly and just as efficacious as follow-up with a primary care physician.The benefits that accrue with home splint removal are potentially more than financial. Parental time away from employment or other priorities, as well as school absence by affected children, are obviated by home management of distal radius fractures.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,315
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,407

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,276
Écart entre enseignants0,267 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAAP Grand RoundsMême sujetBone fractures and treatmentsTravaux en français237 207