Comparative effectiveness of treatment options for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims The aims of this network meta-analysis (NMA) were to examine nonunion rates and functional outcomes following various operative and nonoperative treatments for displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures. Methods Initial search strategy incorporated MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Four treatment arms were created: nonoperative (NO); intramedullary nailing (IMN); reconstruction plating (RP); and compression/pre-contoured plating (CP). A Bayesian NMA was conducted to compare all treatment options for outcomes of nonunion, malunion, and function using the Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome scores. Results In all, 19 RCTs consisting of 1,783 clavicle fractures were included in the NMA. All surgical options demonstrated a significantly lower odds ratio (OR) of nonunion in comparison to nonoperative management: CP versus NO (OR 0.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.17); IMN versus NO (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.19); RP versus NO (OR 0.07; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.24). Compression plating was the only treatment to demonstrate significantly lower DASH scores relative to NO at six weeks (mean difference -10.97; 95% CI -20.69 to 1.47). Conclusion Surgical fixation demonstrated a lower risk of nonunion compared to nonoperative management. Compression plating resulted in significantly less disability early after surgery compared to nonoperative management. These results demonstrate possible early improved functional outcomes with compression plating compared to nonoperative treatment. Surgical fixation of mid-shaft clavicle fractures with compression plating may result in quicker return to activity by rendering patients less disabled early after surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):646–654.
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 | 0.019 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".