Management of Toddler's Fractures: A Systematic Review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine and compare the efficacy of external fixation strategies of toddler's fracture (TF) in acute care settings. Specifically, we aim to identify whether immobilization optimizes clinical outcomes for patients (based on immobilization duration, time to weight-bear/ambulate, and associated complications) compared with nonimmobilization, with a systematic review. STUDY DESIGN: After PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, 2 independent reviewers searched electronic databases OVID Medline, Embase, and CINAHL for studies evaluating the health outcomes of various treatment methods for TF (1937-2019). The studies were chosen based on specific inclusion criteria. The 2 reviewers were looking for primary research articles that assessed health outcomes (such as immobilization duration, time to weight-bear/ambulate, and associated complications) of various treatment strategies for TF Fractures in acute care settings. RESULTS: A total of 2385 articles were initially screened, reviewed, and then narrowed down to 6 studies for an in-depth analysis. Among these 6 studies, 5 were retrospective chart reviews and 1 was a cross-sectional online survey. A total of 565 patients from the retrospective chart reviews and 153 physicians from the cross-sectional online survey were further analyzed. The current evidence shows that there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes (ie, time to weight-bear and immobilization duration) between immobilization and nonimmobilization. CONCLUSIONS: Further large-scale prospective studies examining the clinical outcomes of TF management techniques should be conducted to establish a consistent standardized guideline for TF treatment across acute care settings.
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 | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".