Comparing digital replantation versus revision amputation patient reported outcomes for traumatic digital amputations of the hand: A systematic review and <scp>meta‐analysis</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Adults with traumatic digital amputation (TDA) of the hand may be managed with replantation or revision amputation. To date, there is no systematic review evaluating patient reported outcomes (PROs) comparing replantation versus revision amputation. Methods Three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed) were systematically searched in duplicate from inception until June 13, 2019 using Covidence software. Studies comparing replantation versus revision amputation outcomes were considered for inclusion. Methodological quality was assessed using Methodologic Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. Data were pooled in a random‐effects meta‐analysis model using Revman software. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). Results Of 4350 studies identified, 12 retrospective cohort studies met inclusion criteria and compared TDA outcomes for replantation (n = 717; 82.9% male; mean age 40.3) versus revision amputation (n = 1046; 79.8% male; mean age 41.7). The overall replantation survival rate was 85.3%. The average MINORS score was 57% (13.75/24). Replantation of the thumb had a superior Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) score (+11.88, 95% CI [7.78–15.99], I2 = 21%) compared with revision amputation. Replantation of single non‐thumb digits had a superior MHQ score (+5.31, 95% CI [3.10–7.51], I2 = 67%) and Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score (−5.16, 95% CI [−8.27 to −2.06], I2 = 0%) compared with revision amputation. Most patients in the meta‐analysis were from Asian populations (87.9%). Conclusion There is low‐quality evidence that thumb replantation achieves superior PROs compared with revision amputation, which may be clinically important. Replantation of single non‐thumb digits also yielded superior PROs, which is likely not clinically important and based on very low‐quality evidence. Future studies with populations outside Asia are required to determine if PROs vary based on cultural differences toward digital amputation.
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 | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".