ArticleAnnals of medicine2025
Comparing the clinical outcomes of an innovative bi-frame external fixation device compared to those of volar locking plate and external fixator device among patients with unstable distal radius fractures: a two-year retrospective comparative cohort study.
Article in Annals of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVolar locking plate (VLP) fixation for unstable distal radius fractures (DRF) requires extensive soft tissue dissection and is associated with implant-related complications. Conventional external fixator (EF) carries risks such as reduction loss, pin loosening, and unstable traction. This study retrospectively evaluates the clinical efficacy and safety of a novel bi-frame external fixation device (BEF) compared with VLP and EF over a two-year period.
methodsrA total of 131 patients with unstable DRF treated between 2015 and 2022 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University were included (42 BEF, 44 EF, 45 VLP). Functional outcomes included wrist range of motion and grip strength. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE), and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) scores. Radiographic parameters and complications were recorded. Statistical comparisons used t-tests, Mann-Whitney U-tests, and chi-square or Fisher's exact tests.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable. BEF showed significantly shorter time from injury to surgery than VLP (17.2±5.2 vs. 68.3±24.1 hours,
conclusionsBEF represents an innovative, viable and safe alternative for unstable DRF. Further multicenter randomized trials with extended follow-up are warranted.
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.