MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550456663 · doi:10.1186/s13018-016-0465-z

Efficacy and safety of tension band wiring versus plate fixation in olecranon fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2016· review· en· W2550456663 on OpenAlex
Yiming Ren, Hu-Yun Qiao, Zhijian Wei, Wei Lin, Baoyou Fan, Jun Liu, Ang Li, Yi Kang, Shen Liu, Hao Yan, Xianhu Zhou, Shiqing Feng

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOlecranonOrthopedic surgeryTension band wiringFixation (population genetics)Meta-analysisSurgeryOrthodonticsElbowInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Olecranon fracture (OF) is a common upper limb fracture, and the most commonly used techniques are still tension band wiring (TBW) and plate fixation (PF). The aim of the current study is to discuss whether TBW or PF technique of internal fixation is better in the treatment of OFs, using the method of meta-analysis. METHODS: The eligible studies were acquired from PubMed, CNKI, Embase, Cochrane Library, and other sources. The data were extracted by two of the coauthors independently and were analyzed by RevMan5.3. Standardized mean differences (SMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Thirteen studies including 1 RCT and 12 observational studies were assessed. Our meta-analysis results showed that both in RCT and observational studies, there were no significant differences between the two groups in disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) (SMD = 0.07, 95% CI = -0.32 to 0.46, p = 0.73), improvement rate (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.48-1.22, p = 0.26), range of motion (ROM), operation time (SMD = -0.51, 95% CI = -1.17 to 0.14, p = 0.12) and blood loss (SMD = -0.97, 95% CI = -2.06 to 0.11, p = 0.08). The overall estimate of complications indicated that the pooled OR was 2.61 (95% CI = 1.65-4.14, p < 0.0001), suggesting that the difference was statistically significant. We also compared the outcomes of patients with mayo type IIA OFs treated by TBW and PF in DASH and ROM and found no differences. CONCLUSIONS: Both TBW and PF interventions had treatment benefit in OFs. The current study reveals that there are no significant differences in DASH, improvement rate, ROM, operation time, and blood loss between TBW and PF for OFs. Due to the less complications, we recommend the PF approach as the optical choice for OFs. More high-quality studies are required to further confirm our results.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.236 · 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