Surgical debridement in open distal phalanx fractures, what is the evidence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Title: Surgical debridement in open distal phalanx fractures, what is the evidence? Research Question: In patients undergoing surgical debridement and irrigation for open distal phalanx fractures what are the associated outcomes and potential complication rates in this patient population? Searches: A comprehensive search of major bibliographic databases Medline (via Ovid), Embase (via Ovid) and Cochrane will be conducted to identify relevant studies. Databases will be searched from inception. The main search strategy will be developed on Medline. The vocabulary and syntax of the Medline strategy will be tailored and adapted to the other databases. No restrictions will be applied (e.g., language, year, status of publication). We will review the reference lists of included studies to identify any other relevant studies. Keywords and index/subject terms will be joined by Boolean operators “AND” or “OR”. Last, we will download all the retrieved citations to an EndNote library for deduplication. The search strategy is provided in appendix 1. Types of studies to be included: Prospective and retrospective studies, randomized controlled trials, case-series, case-control studies, and case reports will be eligible for inclusion. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, letters to the editor, viewpoints, commentaries, abstracts not traced to full text and protocols not traced to full text will be excluded. Condition of domain being studied: Surgical debridement and irrigation in open distal phalanx fractures. This systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Participants/Population: Pediatric (< 18 years old) or adult (≥ 18 years old) patients undergoing debridement and/or irrigation for distal phalanx fractures. Intervention(s), exposure(s): Debridement, irrigation, phalanx fracture Comparator(s)/control: Studies which had no control group or that provided a control group (any type). Outcome(s): Infection rate, mal-union or misalignment, physeal closure disturbance, nail deformity, follow-up time, lost to follow-up, Data extraction (selection and coding): Following the removal of duplicate citations, we will transfer the EndNote library to Rayyan, an online systematic review software. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts of all the retrieved citations against prespecified eligibility criteria (see study eligibility above). Studies considered potentially eligible by either reviewer will proceed to full-text assessment. Any disagreements regarding study eligibility will be resolved through consensus, and when necessary, through discussion with a third reviewer. One reviewer will conduct the data extraction, with a piloted data extraction. A second reviewer will review the extracted data and report any disagreements. Discrepancies will be resolved through consensus, and when necessary, through discussion with a third reviewer. Risk of bias (quality) assessment: Quality assessment will be performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale independently from the data extraction process. If randomized controlled trials are included, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool will be used. Strategy for data synthesis: We will produce summary tables which will include study and sample characteristics as well as results. When possible, postoperative complication rates will be calculated. Where applicable overall averages will be calculated (e.g., OR time) Analysis of subgroups or subsets: Based on the available data, we will decide if subgroup analyses are appropriate. Contact details for further information: Omar El Sewify omar.elsewify@mail.mcgill.ca Organizational affiliation of the review: Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal Review team members and their organizational affiliations: Omar El Sewify. Laval University Gabe Bouhadana. University of Montreal Elisabeth Lorange. University of Montreal Mia Chen. University of Montreal Dr. Johnny Ionut Efanov. University of Montreal Collaborators: Not applicable Type and method of review: Systematic review Anticipated or actual start date: May 2023 Anticipated completion date: October 2023 Funding sources/sponsors: None Conflicts of interest: None Language: English Country: Canada
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 | 0.011 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".