MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046822063 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.i.01214

Surgical Compared with Conservative Treatment for Acute Nondisplaced or Minimally Displaced Scaphoid Fractures

2010· review· en· W2046822063 on OpenAlex
Geert A. Buijze, Job N. Doornberg, John Ham, David Ring, Mohit Bhandari, Rudolf W. Poolman

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 · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNonunionSurgeryConservative treatmentInternal fixationRandomized controlled trialRange of motionScaphoid boneRadiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is a current trend in orthopaedic practice to treat nondisplaced or minimally displaced fractures with early open reduction and internal fixation instead of cast immobilization. This trend is not evidence-based. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we pool data from trials comparing surgical and conservative treatment for acute nondisplaced and minimally displaced scaphoid fractures, thus aiming to summarize the best available evidence. METHODS: A systematic literature search of the medical literature from 1966 to 2009 was performed. We selected eight randomized controlled trials comparing surgical with conservative treatment for acute nondisplaced or minimally displaced scaphoid fractures in adults. Data from included studies were pooled with use of fixed-effects and random-effects models with standard mean differences and risk ratios for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed with calculation of the I(2) statistic. RESULTS: Four hundred and nineteen patients from eight trials were included. Two hundred and seven patients were treated surgically, and 212 were treated conservatively. Most trials lacked scientific rigor. Our primary outcome parameter, standardized functional outcome, which was assessed for 247 patients enrolled in four trials, significantly favored surgical treatment (p < 0.01). With regard to our secondary parameters, we found heterogeneous results that favored surgical treatment in terms of satisfaction (assessed in one study), grip strength (six studies), time to union (three studies), and time off work (five studies). In contrast, we found no significant differences between surgical and conservative treatment with regard to pain (two studies), range of motion (six studies), the rates of nonunion (six studies) and malunion (seven studies), and total treatment costs (two studies). The rate of complications was higher in the surgical treatment group (23.7%) than in the conservative group (9.1%), although this difference was not significant (p = 0.13). There was a nearly significantly higher rate of scaphotrapezial osteoarthritis in the surgical treatment group (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Based on primary studies with limited methodological quality, this study suggests that surgical treatment is favorable for acute nondisplaced and minimally displaced scaphoid fractures with regard to functional outcome and time off work; however, surgical treatment engenders more complications. Thus, the long-term risks and short-term benefits of surgery should be carefully weighed in clinical decision-making.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.308 · 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