ArticleJB & JS open access
Trends in Treatment Decisions for Distal Radius Fractures: The Effect of a Guideline Change.
Article in JB & JS open access. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The 2022 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons/American Society for Surgery of the Hand (AAOS/ASSH) guideline discourages routine operative fixation of distal radius fractures (DRF) in patients aged 65 years or older. This study examined the impact of this recommendation on operative management patterns in this population. Methods: A retrospective, quasi-experimental before-after study was conducted, including all DRF diagnoses among patients aged 65 years or older at a tertiary medical center during 2012 to 2024. Annual age-standardized and sex-standardized DRF incidence and surgery rates were estimated. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated postguideline versus preguideline odds of surgery and model-based projection compared expected with observed postguideline surgery rates. Results: During the study period, 3,137 DRF cases were diagnosed with stable incidence. Surgery rates significantly increased among patients aged 65 to 69 years from 9% to 16% after guideline publication, whereas rates were unchanged in patients aged 70 years or older. Patients aged 65 to 69 years were nearly twice as likely to undergo operative management in the postguideline versus preguideline period. Model-based projection among patients aged 65 to 69 years predicted a postguideline surgery rate of 11%, whereas the observed rate of 16% represented a 44% relative increase. Conclusions: Despite a guideline discouraging operative management of DRF at ages ≥65 years, surgery rates did not decline, and increased in those aged 65 to 69 years, highlighting the limitations of an age-only treatment threshold. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.