MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020298044 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.k.00917

Surgical Versus Nonsurgical Treatment of Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture

2012· review· en· W2020298044 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health Authority
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineRange of motionAchilles tendon ruptureMeta-analysisSurgeryRelative riskPublication biasSubgroup analysisOdds ratioAchilles tendonStudy heterogeneityRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineTendonConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Surgical repair is a common method of treatment of acute Achilles rupture in North America because, despite a higher risk of overall complications, it has been believed to offer a reduced risk of rerupture. However, more recent trials, particularly those using functional bracing with early range of motion, have challenged this belief. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare surgical treatment and conservative treatment with regard to the rerupture rate, the overall rate of other complications, return to work, calf circumference, and functional outcomes, as well as to examine the effects of early range of motion on the rerupture rate. METHODS: A literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers. Publication bias was assessed with use of the Egger and Begg tests. Heterogeneity was assessed with use of the I2 test, and fixed or random-effect models were used accordingly. Pooled results were expressed as risk ratios, risk differences, and weighted or standardized mean differences, as appropriate. Meta-regression was employed to identify causes of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was performed to assess the effect of early range of motion. RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. If functional rehabilitation with early range of motion was employed, rerupture rates were equal for surgical and nonsurgical patients (risk difference = 1.7%, p = 0.45). If such early range of motion was not employed, the absolute risk reduction achieved by surgery was 8.8% (p = 0.001 in favor of surgery). Surgery was associated with an absolute risk increase of 15.8% (p = 0.016 in favor of nonoperative management) for complications other than rerupture. Surgical patients returned to work 19.16 days sooner (p = 0.0014). There was no significant difference between the two treatments with regard to calf circumference (p = 0.357), strength (p = 0.806), or functional outcomes (p = 0.226). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the meta-analysis demonstrate that conservative treatment should be considered at centers using functional rehabilitation. This resulted in rerupture rates similar to those for surgical treatment while offering the advantage of a decrease in other complications. Surgical repair should be preferred at centers that do not employ early-range-of-motion protocols as it decreased the rerupture risk in such patients.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it