Operative Versus Nonoperative Care of Displaced Midshaft Clavicular Fractures: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested benefits following primary operative fixation of substantially displaced midshaft fractures of the clavicle. We reviewed randomized clinical trials of operative versus nonoperative treatment of these fractures, and pooled the functional outcome and complication rates to arrive at summary estimates of these outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies of randomized clinical trials comparing operative versus nonoperative care for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. RESULTS: Six studies (n = 412 patients, mean Detsky score = 15.3) were included. The nonunion rate was higher in the nonoperatively treated patients (twenty-nine of 200) than it was in patients treated operatively (three of 212) (p = 0.001). The rate of symptomatic malunion was higher in the nonoperative group (seventeen of 200) than it was in the operative group (0 of 212) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Operative treatment provided a significantly lower rate of nonunion and symptomatic malunion and an earlier functional return compared with nonoperative treatment. However, there is little evidence at present to show that the long-term functional outcome of operative intervention is significantly superior to nonoperative care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.052 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it