Does degree of immobilization influence refracture rate in the forearm buckle fracture?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine whether the degree of immobilization (method, extent, duration of treatment) affects the risk of refracture in the management of forearm buckle fractures. We performed a comprehensive systematic review of prospective trials using accepted epidemiological methods. Studies were selected in step-wise manner, in duplicate, with critical appraisal of identified studies. Results are presented in a summary table with primary and secondary outcomes described. Of the 869 studies identified by the search strategy, five studies met all eligibility criteria. 455 participants were included. No refractures were reported in any of the studies during the treatment period, regardless of degree of immobilization. One study followed patients for 6 months and found no late refractures in 75 participants. In conclusion, treatment in a removable splint does not increase risk of refracture or late displacement during the treatment period for buckle fractures of the distal forearm. Long-term data on refracture rate is limited. There tends to be improved function, patient acceptance, and caregiver satisfaction with the use of removable splints. Further study is needed to determine whether there are differences for longer periods of follow-up on a population basis.
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 | 0.010 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".