Bet4. Radial or Dorsal Backslab in Colles' Fractures

Acute hand and wrist injuries are a common presentation to the ED and are associated with large individual and societal costs. Appropriate management of these injuries in the ED is crucial given that optimal hand function is essential for daily activities and quality of life. This rapid review investigated best practice for the assessment and management of common closed hand and wrist injuries in the ED. Databases were searched in 2017, including PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, TRIP and the grey literature, including relevant organisational websites. Primary studies, systematic reviews and guidelines published in English language in the past 12 years that addressed the acute assessment, management, follow-up plan or prognosis were considered for inclusion. Data extraction of included articles was conducted, followed by quality appraisal to rate the level of evidence. The search revealed 2454 articles, of which 55 were included in the review (n = 23 primary articles, n = 26 systematic reviews and n = 6 guidelines). This rapid review provides clinicians who manage common closed fractures and soft tissue injuries of the hand and wrist in the ED, a summary of the best available evidence to enhance the quality of care for optimal patient outcomes. There is evidence to support taking a thorough history and physical examination with consideration of occupational and functional factors, restoring alignment and immobilising when necessary and referring onwards. Key points regarding the diagnosis and management of these injuries are provided.

show abstract

“…). At full text, 23 primary articles, 26 SR articles and six guidelines were included in the review.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review article: Best practice management of closed hand and wrist injuries in the emergency department (part 5 of the musculoskeletal injuries rapid review series)

Strudwick

McPhee

Bell

et al. 2018

Emerg Medicine Australasia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A systematic review of the quality of distal radius systematic reviews: Methodology and reporting assessment

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMany systematic reviews (SRs) have been published about the various treatments for distal radius fractures (DRF). The heterogeneity of SRs results may come from the misuse of SR methods, and literature overviews have demonstrated that SRs should be considered with caution as they may not always be synonymous with high-quality standards. Our objective is to evaluate the quality of published SRs on the treatment of DRF through these tools.MethodsThe methods utilized in this review were previously published in the PROSPERO database. We considered SRs of surgical and nonsurgical interventions for acute DRF in adults. A comprehensive search strategy was performed in the MEDLINE database (inception to May 2017) and we manually searched the grey literature for non-indexed research. Data were independently extracted by two authors. We assessed SR internal validity and reporting using AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes). Scores were calculated as the sum of reported items. We also extracted article characteristics and provided Spearman’s correlation measurements.ResultsForty-one articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The mean score for PRISMA was 15.90 (CI 95%, 13.9–17.89) and AMSTAR was 6.48 (CI 95% 5.72–7.23). SRs that considered only RCTs had better AMSTAR [7.56 (2.1) vs. 5.62 (2.3); p = 0.014] and PRISMA scores [18.61 (5.22) vs. 13.93 (6.47), p = 0.027]. The presence of meta-analysis on the SRs altered PRISMA scores [19.17 (4.75) vs. 10.21 (4.51), p = 0.001] and AMSTAR scores [7.68 (1.9) vs. 4.39 (1.66), p = 0.001]. Journal impact factor or declaration of conflict of interest did not change PRISMA and AMSTAR scores. We found substantial inter observer agreement for PRISMA (0.82, 95% CI 0.62–0.94; p = 0.01) and AMSTAR (0.65, 95% CI 0.43–0.81; p = 0.01), and moderate correlation between PRISMA and AMSTAR scores (0.83, 95% CI 0.62–0.92; p = 0.01).ConclusionsDRF RCT-only SRs have better PRISMA and AMSTAR scores. These tools have substantial inter-observer agreement and moderate inter-tool correlation. We exposed the current research panorama and pointed out some factors that can contribute to improvements on the topic.

show abstract

Bet4. Radial or Dorsal Backslab in Colles' Fractures

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Review article: Best practice management of closed hand and wrist injuries in the emergency department (part 5 of the musculoskeletal injuries rapid review series)

Review article: Best practice management of closed hand and wrist injuries in the emergency department (part 5 of the musculoskeletal injuries rapid review series)

A systematic review of the quality of distal radius systematic reviews: Methodology and reporting assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About