Do Immediate Postoperative Radiographs Change Patient Management After Fracture Fixation? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether immediate (0-3 days) postoperative radiography leads to alterations in the management of patients postfracture fixation. DATA SOURCES: Systematic review of English-language articles in the MEDLINE (1946-2016), EMBASE (1974-2016), CDSR (2005-2016), CENTRAL (1948-2016), and Google Scholar databases using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized or non-randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective cohort studies that addressed surgical management of the upper extremity, lower extremity or hip fractures were eligible for review. All included studies needed to have performed radiography within 0-3 days of surgery and reported any directly resulting management changes. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were independently extracted by 2 reviewers using a standardized data collection form with predefined data fields for demographics, interventions, study methods, complications, and management outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: A random-effects model was applied, and pooled effects for absolute benefit increase (ABI) and number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated. CONCLUSIONS: Combining the 11/12 articles that reported by patient numbers, the ABI of immediate postoperative radiography for management change was 0.13% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.00078%-0.60%; NNT = 753]. The ABI for identification of complications was 0.22% (95% CI, 0.0015%-1.24%; NNT = 453). Current literature suggests that immediate postoperative radiography does not lead to management change in most patients after fracture fixation. More comprehensive reporting, along with further prospective comparative research, is encouraged. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".