Healing, Pain and Function after Midshaft Clavicular Fractures: A Systematic Review of Treatment with Immobilization and Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the scientific literature examining the efficacy of nonoperative management for midshaft clavicular fractures, specifically looking at the effect of immobilization and/or functional rehabilitation. TYPE: Systematic review. LITERATURE SURVEY: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL databases were searched. METHODOLOGY: Inclusion criteria included adult patients enrolled in a controlled study evaluating bony healing, pain and/or function-related improvements after a strict nonoperative treatment plan for management of midshaft clavicle fractures. SYNTHESIS: A total of 10 articles were included in the study. Only four studies contained level I evidence; four studies were prospective case series without a control, and one was a retrospective case series without a control. Half of studies used a strict immobilization period, and most utilized a period of functional rehabilitation. There were no direct comparisons between rehabilitation protocols. Studies without a strict immobilization period had a nonunion rate of 5% to 24% and residual pain in 35% to 83% of patients compared to studies with a strict immobilization period with a nonunion rate of 3% to 29% and residual pain in 14% to 49% of patients. Studies including functional rehabilitation protocol reported functional as measured by the Constant Shoulder Score of 87.8 to 96, out of a maximum of 100 representing no functional limitations, and nonunion rates of 12% to 25% compared to 81 to 85 and 3% to 29% in those without a rehabilitation protocol. CONCLUSIONS: No studies directly examine the effect of immobilization and functional rehabilitation on clinical outcomes for midshaft clavicular fractures. Future studies are needed to better elucidate the most effective treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
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 | 0.008 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".