Ultrasound-guided manipulation of Colle's fracture in adults is not beneficial over landmark based fracture reduction. The outcome of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background This review aims to determine the relative Risk of distal Radius (Colle's) fracture (DRF) malalignment between ultrasound-guided and conventional/landmark guided/blind manipulation. Methods Major electronic bibliographic databases on ultrasound-guided manipulation of DRF were searched. Studies with randomized, quasi-randomized, and cross-sectional study designs meeting the inclusion criteria were included for this review. Ultrasound and landmark guided DRF manipulations were named cases and controls respectively. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of included studies. Results Thirteen and nine studies were analysed in the qualitative and quantitative analysis. 951 DRF patients (475 cases and 476 controls) from 9 studies with mean ages of 51.52 ± 11.86 (22-92) and 55.82 ± 11.28 (18-98) years for cases and controls respectively were pooled for this review. The pooled estimate of Relative Risk from the studies included in MA was 0.90 (0.74-1.09). There was a 10% reduction in risk of malreduction of DRF M&R with USG-guided manipulation than the blind manipulation however, sensitivity analysis revealed a relative risk of 1.00 (0.96-1.05). Discussion The ultrasound guided manipulation does not offers benefits in preventing malreduction over the landmark based manipulation of DRF. Unbiased high quality studies can further verify the findings of this review.
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 | 0.026 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".