A Randomized, Controlled Trial of a Removable Brace Versus Casting in Children With Low-Risk Ankle Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Isolated distal fibular ankle fractures in children are very common and at very low risk for future complications. Nevertheless, standard therapy for these fractures still consists of casting, a practice that carries risks, inconveniences, and use of subspecialty health care resources. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to determine whether children who have these low-risk ankle fractures that are treated with a removable ankle brace have at least as effective a recovery of physical function as those that are treated with a cast. METHODS: This was a noninferiority, randomized, single-blind trial in which children who were 5 to 18 years of age and treated in a pediatric emergency department for low-risk ankle fractures were randomly assigned to a removable ankle brace or a below-knee walking cast. The primary outcome at 4 weeks was physical function, measured by using the modified Activities Scale for Kids. Additional outcomes included patient preferences and costs. RESULTS: The mean activity score at 4 weeks was 91.3% in the brace group (n = 54), and this was significantly higher than the mean of 85.3% in the cast group (n = 50). Significantly more children who were treated with a brace had returned to baseline activities by 4 weeks compared with those who were casted (80.8% vs 59.5%). Fifty-four percent of the casted children would have preferred the brace, but only 5.7% of children who received the brace would have preferred the cast. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve was always >80%; therefore, the brace was cost-effective compared with the cast. CONCLUSIONS: The removable ankle brace is more effective than the cast with respect to recovery of physical function, is associated with a faster return to baseline activities, is superior with respect to patient preferences, and is also cost-effective.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".