MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401525454 · doi:10.5312/wjo.v15.i8.783

Clinical effect of operative <i>vs</i> nonoperative treatment on humeral shaft fractures: Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

2024· article· en· W4401525454 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Li Yang, Yi Luo, Jing Peng, Jun Fan, Xiaotao Long

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Orthopedics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre Scientifique et Technique du BâtimentNatural Science Foundation of Chongqing
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisHumeral shaftSystematic reviewClinical trialSurgeryMEDLINEHumerusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Whether operation is superior to non-operation for humeral shaft fracture remains debatable. We hypothesized that operation could decrease the nonunion and reintervention rates and increase the functional outcomes. AIM: To compare the clinical efficacy between operative and nonoperative approaches for humeral shaft fractures. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane databases from 1990 to December 2023 for clinical trials and cohort studies comparing the effects of operative and conservative methods on humeral shaft fractures. Two investigators independently extracted data from the eligible studies, and the other two assessed the methodological quality of each study. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk bias or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The nonunion, reintervention and the overall complications and functional scores were pooled and analyzed using Review Manager software (version 5.3). RESULTS: A total of four randomized control trials and 13 cohort studies were included, with 1285 and 1346 patients in the operative and nonoperative groups, respectively. Patients in the operative group were treated with a plate or nail, whereas those in the conservative group were managed with splint or functional bracing. Four studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias, and the other 13 were of a low risk of bias according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane risk bias tool. The operative group had a significantly decreased rate of nonunion [odds ratio (OR) 0.30; 95%CI: 0.23 to 0.40), reintervention (OR: 0.33; 95%CI: 0.24 to 0.47), and overall complications (OR: 0.62; 95%CI: 0.49 to 0.78)]. The pooled effect of the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score showed a significant difference at 3 [mean difference (MD) -8.26; 95%CI: -13.60 to -2.92], 6 (MD: -6.72; 95%CI: -11.34 to -2.10), and 12 months (MD: -2.55; 95%CI: -4.36 to -0.74). The pooled effect of Visual Analog Scale scores and the Constant-Murley score did not significantly differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed a trend of rapid functional recovery and decreased rates of nonunion and reintervention after operation for humeral shaft fracture compared to conservative treatment.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.032
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OrthopedicsSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207