Commentary & Perspective Should I Ever Fix a Clavicular Fracture? Commentary on an article by Robbin C. McKee, et al.: ‘‘Operative Versus Nonoperative Care of Displaced Midshaft Clavicular Fractures: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials’’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, McKee et al. offer a welcome and thorough analysis of the controversial topic of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. McKee was the lead investigator on a prospective randomized clinical trial by the Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society (COTS) study that was published in January 2007 in JBJS and that is included in this analysis1. Since the publication of that study, it has been my observation that some surgeons have used the results of that study—specifically, that, overall, patients have improved function at all time periods of analysis—to justify the overutilization of internal fixation of displaced clavicular fractures. This manuscript thoroughly evaluates the six prospective randomized trials that are available for analysis. The summation of the data indicates, as McKee et al. note, that approximately 75 % of all patients with a nonoperatively treated, 100 % displaced midshaft clavicular fracture will have essentially normal motion, with full fracture union, normal strength, and normal outcome scores of the upper extremity, and that there is an overall minimal difference in function between operative and nonoperative groups as measured with use of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Constant scores. Approximately 15 % of patients with nonoperatively treated fractures will have a nonunion and 10 % will have a symptomatic malunion. It is not surprising that there is essentially no difference in the functional outcomes scores with use of the DASH or the Constant score for these two cohorts of patients. If 75 % of nonoperatively treated patients heal with few or no symptoms, this large percentage will blunt any effects of the two treatment groups when considered on the whole. This manuscript can be utilized to give
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".