Below the elbow casts were as effective as above the elbow casts for maintaining reduction of forearm fractures in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bohm ER, Bubbar V, Yong-Hing K, et al. Above and below-the-elbow plaster casts for distal forearm fractures in children. A randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:1–8. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3] Q In children with a closed fracture of the distal third of the forearm, are below the elbow casts as effective as above the elbow casts? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★☆☆☆ Orthopaedics ★★★★★★☆ Emergency medicine ★★★★☆☆☆ Paediatrics ★★★☆☆☆☆ ### ![Graphic][4] Design: randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. ### ![Graphic][5] Allocation: {concealed*}†. ### ![Graphic][6] Blinding: blinded (outcome assessors).* ### ![Graphic][7] Follow up period: 18 weeks. ### ![Graphic][8] Setting: tertiary care hospital in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. ### ![Graphic][9] Patients: 117 children 4–12 years of age who presented with a closed fracture of the distal third of the forearm requiring reduction. Children with open factures or Salter Harris type III or IV fractures were excluded. ### ![Graphic][10] Intervention: below the elbow (n = 46) or above the elbow (n = 56) cast was applied after closed reduction of the fracture. Reduction was done under conscious sedation in the emergency department within 4 hours, or under … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DThe%2BJournal%2Bof%2BBone%2Band%2BJoint%2BSurgery%26rft.stitle%253DJBJS%26rft.issn%253D0021-9355%26rft.aulast%253DBohm%26rft.auinit1%253DE.%2BR.%26rft.volume%253D88%26rft.issue%253D1%26rft.spage%253D1%26rft.epage%253D8%26rft.atitle%253DAbove%2Band%2BBelow-the-Elbow%2BPlaster%2BCasts%2Bfor%2BDistal%2BForearm%2BFractures%2Bin%2BChildren.%2BA%2BRandomized%2BControlled%2BTrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.2106%252FJBJS.E.00320%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16391243%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2106/JBJS.E.00320&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16391243&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F4%2F107.atom [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".