Cast versus splint in children with minimally angulated fractures of the distal radius: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally angulated fractures of the distal radius are common in children and have excellent outcomes. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether the use of a prefabricated splint is as effective as a cast in the recovery of physical function. METHODS: We included 96 children 5 to 12 years of age who were treated for a minimally angulated (≤ 15°) greenstick or transverse fracture of the wrist between April 2007 and September 2009 at a tertiary care pediatric hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a prefabricated wrist splint or a short arm cast for four weeks. The primary outcome was physical function at six weeks, measured using the performance version of the Activities Scale for Kids. Additional outcomes included the degree of angulation, range of motion, grip strength and complications. RESULTS: Of the 96 children, 46 received a splint and 50 a cast. The mean Activities Scale for Kids score at six weeks was 92.8 in the splint group and 91.4 in the cast group (difference 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.75 to 4.62). Thus, the null hypothesis that the splint is less effective by at least seven points was rejected. The between-group difference in angulation at four weeks was not statistically significant (9.85° in the splint group and 8.20° in the cast group; mean difference 1.65°, 95% CI -1.82° to 5.11°), nor was the between-group differences in range of motion, grip strength and complications. INTERPRETATION: In children with minimally angulated fractures of the distal radius, use of a splint was as effective as a cast with respect to the recovery of physical function. In addition, the devices were comparable in terms of the maintenance of fracture stability and the occurrence of complications. (ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. NCT00610220.).
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".