EFFECT OF TIME-TO-SURGERY ON DISTAL RADIUS FRACTURE OUTCOMES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It remains unclear whether time-to-surgery for distal radius fractures affects clinical, functional, or radiographic outcomes or health care costs/use. This systematic review investigated the outcomes of early versus delayed surgery for closed, isolated distal radius fractures in adult patients. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases was completed for all original case series, observational studies, and randomized controlled trials reporting clinical outcomes of both early and delayed surgically-treated distal radius fractures from database inception to July 01, 2022. A consistent threshold of two weeks was used to define early versus delayed treatment arms. Nine studies, including 16 intervention arms and 1,189 patients (858 early, 331 delayed), were included. Mean age was 58 years (range, 33-76). At more than one year, the frequency-weighted mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was 4 in the early group (n = 208; range, 1-17) and 21 in the delayed group (n = 181; range, 4-27). Range of motion, grip strength, and radiographic outcomes were comparable. The pooled mean complication rate (7% vs 5%) and revision rate (3.6% vs 1%) were very low in both groups. A delay in time-to-surgery greater than two weeks for distal radius fractures may be associated with inferior patient-reported outcomes. Early surgery was associated with improved long-term Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores. On the basis of the available evidence, range of motion, grip strength, and radiographic outcomes are similar. The complication and revision rates were very low in both groups and comparable.
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 | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".