Operative versus nonoperative treatment of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy of operative and nonoperative treatments for the displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures (DIACF) remains uncertain. OBJECT: We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of operative and nonoperative treatments in treating patients with DIACF. METHODS: Databases including Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CBM, CNKI, and Google Scholar were searched. After independent study selection by 2 authors, data were extracted and collected independently. Comparisons were performed between operative treatment group and nonoperative treatment group. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RevMan 5.3 was used for data analysis. The primary outcome measures were anatomical measures (changes in Böhler angle and calcaneal height and width), functional measures (shoe problems, resuming preinjury work, and residual pain), and complications (including superficial and deep wound infection, skin flap necrosis, neurovascular injury, secondary arthrodesis, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, osteotomy, thromboembolism, and compartment syndromes). RESULTS: Eighteen trials (8 randomized controlled trials and 10 controlled clinical trials) including 1467 patients were considered. For anatomical measurements, the overall mean differences (MDs) for the mean Böhler angle, calcaneal height and width were 15.39 (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.12-21.67), 6.55 (95% CI 2.67-10.43), and 7.05 (95% CI -7.83 to -6.27), respectively. In functional measures, the overall effect MD of American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society was 6.23 (95% CI 5.22-17.67) and 0.38 (95% CI 0.22-0.67). The overall relative risks (RRs) of wearing shoes, resuming preinjury work, and having residual pain were 0.32 (95% CI 0.32-1.00), 0.56 (95% CI 0.40-0.77), and 0.90 (95% CI 0.68-1.20), respectively. The overall RR of the incidence of complications was 2.00 (95% CI 1.51-2.64). CONCLUSION: Operative treatment of DIACF may lead to a higher incidence of complications but has better anatomical recovery when compared with nonoperative treatment.
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".