Treatment of Acute Achilles Tendon Ruptures A Systematic Overview and Metaanalysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A quantitative systematic review of randomized and quasirandomized trials was conducted to determine the effect of surgical versus conservative treatment of acute Achilles tendon ruptures on rates of rerupture. Secondary outcomes included deep infection rates, return to normal function, and minor complaints. A search of computerized databases was conducted to locate clinical studies published from 1969 to 2000. Additional studies were located through hand searches of major orthopaedic journals, bibliographies of major orthopaedic texts, and personal files. Of the 273 citations initially identified, 11 proved potentially eligible, and six met all eligibility criteria. Three investigators independently graded study quality and abstracted relevant data. Among the studies, surgical repair revealed a significant reduction in the risk of rerupture when compared with conservative treatment. Alternatively, the risk of infection with surgical repair was significantly increased. Pooled analysis of studies did not reveal any difference in the risk of minor complaints or return to normal function between surgical repair and conservatively treated groups. Surgical treatment significantly reduces the risk of Achilles tendon rerupture, but increases the risk of infection, when compared with conservative therapy. Wide confidence intervals around the estimates of risk reduction suggest a large trial is needed to establish risks and benefits.
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 | 0.023 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".