ReviewCureus2024
Surgical vs. Conservative Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures in the Elderly: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effectiveness of dry heat treatment (fluidotherapy) in patients with distal radius fracture followed conservatively: a single-blinded, randomized controlled clinical study.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2025Trial
- Article
- Second Metacarpal Index as a Predictor of Secondary Displacement in Conservatively Treated Distal Radius Fractures.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- [Poster Fusion Cage combined with xenogeneic bone graft augmentation for bone defect management in distal radius fractures].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
- 3D-Printed Orthoses vs Conventional Immobilization Methods for Pediatric Distal Radius Fractures.Journal of orthopedics for physician assistantsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Elderly patients with distal radius fractures (DRFs) pose a significant medical challenge due to their high incidence and related healthcare costs. Both surgical methods like volar plate fixation and conservative approaches such as casting are common, yet their relative effectiveness remains unclear. This review and meta-analysis compare surgical and conservative treatments, focusing on wrist functionality, upper extremity performance, grip strength, and pain after one year. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science up to November 6, 2024, to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for DRFs in patients aged 65 and older. Thirteen RCTs with 2400 participants were included. After one year, there was no significant difference in wrist function between groups (mean difference (MD)=-1.24; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.61 to 0.13; p=0.78; I²=78%), but upper limb function favored surgery as measured by the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score (MD=-2.32; 95% CI -3.66 to -0.98; p=0.0007; I²=83%). Surgical treatment significantly improved grip strength (MD=3.82; 95% CI 1.55 to 6.09; p=0.001) but resulted in higher pain levels (MD=2.73; 95% CI 1.16 to 4.31; p=0.0007). Results showed substantial heterogeneity and publication bias. Surgical treatment offers slight functional advantages in grip strength and DASH scores but is associated with higher pain; conservative treatment remains viable with minimal differences in long-term wrist function. Further high-quality studies are necessary to address heterogeneity and publication bias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.