MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224325525 · doi:10.2196/37171

The Clinical Outcomes of Operative Treatment Versus Conservative Treatment for Dancer’s Fractures: Protocol for a Retrospective Cohort Study

2022· article· en· W4224325525 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marinus Alexander de Ruijter, Jian Zhang Yuan, Robert Jan Derksen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNonunionRetrospective cohort studySurgeryConservative treatmentCohortConcomitantTrauma centerCohort studyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Fifth metatarsal fractures are one of the most common foot fractures, and 11% to 25% of such fractures are Dancer's fractures (distal spiral fractures). Conservative therapy while wearing a cast and operative treatment have been used as preferred modes of treatment in the limited literature available. However, we often see healing problems, such as delayed union and nonunion, when Dancer's fractures are treated nonoperatively, resulting in a need for secondary intervention. In our institution, treatment has changed over the years from predominantly conservative treatment to mostly operative treatment. To investigate whether our hypothesis holds true that primary surgical treatment is beneficial, a retrospective study was designed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to compare differences between outcomes (delayed union and nonunion) of conservative and operative treatments for Dancer's fractures. METHODS: A retrospective comparative cohort study will be conducted in a level II trauma center (Zaandam Medical Center). Patients who experienced a Dancer's fracture in the period of 2012 to 2021 will be included and divided into 2 cohorts-the conservative (2012-2015) and operative (2016-2021) treatment cohorts. The primary outcome will be the differences in percentages of delayed union and nonunion between the two groups. The secondary outcomes will be the percentage of primary conservative treatment failure, the need for secondary operative treatment, complications (infection and hardware failure), and functional outcomes. If 118 patients are included in each group, sufficient power is expected to be reached, depending on the age distribution of patients. The percentages of delayed union and nonunion among the two groups will be calculated and statistically compared via chi-square statistics. A logistic regression analysis will be used to investigate possible associations between patient characteristics and failed conservative treatment. A Mann-Whitney U test will be used to compare functional outcomes between groups. An independent, 2-tailed t test will be used to compare mean 12-Item Short Form Survey scores if they are normally distributed, and a Wilcoxon rank sum test will be used if they are nonnormally distributed. RESULTS: In total, 2134 potentially relevant health insurance codes have been extracted from the hospital's register. We expect to find a total of 236 Dancer's fractures in this data set. CONCLUSIONS: Our study has limitations due to it being a single-center study and data collection being performed retrospectively. However, it covers a large time period and may provide the possibility to show treatment outcome differences (delayed union and nonunion, complications, and functional outcomes) in 2 reasonably large cohorts (conservative and operative treatment cohorts), which has not been done before in literature on Dancer's fractures. If our hypothesis that surgery is beneficial for Dancer's fractures is proven true by our study, we plan to further corroborate it by conducting a prospective randomized controlled trial. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/37171.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.536
GPT teacher head0.681
Teacher spread0.145 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207