Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Reported Outcome and Return to Work after Surgical vs Non-Surgical Mid Shaft Humerus Fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Several recent reviews demonstrate that in patients with humeral shaft fractures, surgical therapy has lesser risks of non-union, mal-union, and re-intervention than non-surgical therapy. These positive clinical outcomes of the surgical approach make it a preferable treatment option despite the risks of radial nerve palsy and additional surgery-related risk. We aimed to evaluate patients' outcomes and return to work after surgical vs. non-surgical management of shaft humeral fracture. Methods: We used databases, including PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials from 2010 to January 2022 to search potential randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing the patients' related outcome measures and return to work between surgical and non-surgical management of humerus fracture. Results: After carefully evaluating 1352 articles, we included three RCTs (232 patients) and one cohort study (39 patients). The surgical intervention used plate/ nail fixation, while the non-surgical intervention used splint or brace procedure to manage shaft humeral fracture. The pooled DASH effects of all three RCTs at six (M.D: -7.5 [-13.20, -1.89], P: 0.009) I2:44%) and 12 months (M.D: -1.32 [-3.82, 1.17], p:0.29, I2: 0%) were higher in patients treated surgically than in non-surgical procedures. The pooled constant Murley score at six (M.D: 7.945[2.77,13.10], P: 0.003) I2: 0%) and 12 months (M.D: 1.78 [-1.52, 5.09], P: 0.29, I2: 0%) were higher in patients who received non-surgical than surgical therapy. However, pooled analysis for patients returning to work for both groups remained inconclusive. Conclusion: Altogether, we found no significant evidence supporting the clinical benefits of surgical over non-surgical therapy. Thus, the non-surgical approach remains the preferred therapeutic choice for managing shaft humeral fractures due to its lesser side effects
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".