桡骨远端骨折的手术与非手术干预:患者评定腕部评估指标的定量分析。

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS Acta orthopaedica Belgica Pub Date : 2023-12-01 DOI:10.52628/89.4.12408
S S Gill, S R Namireddy
{"title":"桡骨远端骨折的手术与非手术干预:患者评定腕部评估指标的定量分析。","authors":"S S Gill, S R Namireddy","doi":"10.52628/89.4.12408","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Trials to assess differences in PRWE (Patient Related Wrist Evaluation) over time, for both surgical and non-surgical interventions post DRFs (distal radius fractures) are rare. The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) questionnaire has been shown to be improved by a greater margin in the medium term for surgical interventions, than non surgical interventions. However, a study found that PRWE can be considered superior to the DASH questionnaire for DRFs, due to greater specificity to wrist pain and function. Conflicting data makes it difficult to determine surgical vs non-surgical superiority for DRF's over time with PRWE as a recovery metric. PubMed and Cochrane were searched for randomised controlled trials up to 31.8.23, reporting PRWE over 3, and 12 months. Data was extracted by 2 researchers. The differences in PRWE over time post surgical and non-surgical interventions was assessed using unpaired T testing. 1226 records were screened. 4 studies enrolling 817 participants met the eligibility criteria and were analysed. Significantly lower PRWE in surgical intervention has been identified at the 3 month mark (p<0.001). There was greater significant change in non-surgical intervention between months 3 and 12 (p<0.001). Change in PRWE over time may be a good indicator of functional outcomes in DRFs post surgical or non-surgical interventions. This could inform future clinical trial design and surgical decision-making. Further work is required to design even more user-friendly and digital patient- reported outcomes specifically for DRFs.</p>","PeriodicalId":7018,"journal":{"name":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surgical vs Non-surgical interventions for distal radius fractures: a quantitative analysis of Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation measures.\",\"authors\":\"S S Gill, S R Namireddy\",\"doi\":\"10.52628/89.4.12408\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Trials to assess differences in PRWE (Patient Related Wrist Evaluation) over time, for both surgical and non-surgical interventions post DRFs (distal radius fractures) are rare. The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) questionnaire has been shown to be improved by a greater margin in the medium term for surgical interventions, than non surgical interventions. However, a study found that PRWE can be considered superior to the DASH questionnaire for DRFs, due to greater specificity to wrist pain and function. Conflicting data makes it difficult to determine surgical vs non-surgical superiority for DRF's over time with PRWE as a recovery metric. PubMed and Cochrane were searched for randomised controlled trials up to 31.8.23, reporting PRWE over 3, and 12 months. Data was extracted by 2 researchers. The differences in PRWE over time post surgical and non-surgical interventions was assessed using unpaired T testing. 1226 records were screened. 4 studies enrolling 817 participants met the eligibility criteria and were analysed. Significantly lower PRWE in surgical intervention has been identified at the 3 month mark (p<0.001). There was greater significant change in non-surgical intervention between months 3 and 12 (p<0.001). Change in PRWE over time may be a good indicator of functional outcomes in DRFs post surgical or non-surgical interventions. This could inform future clinical trial design and surgical decision-making. Further work is required to design even more user-friendly and digital patient- reported outcomes specifically for DRFs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta orthopaedica Belgica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta orthopaedica Belgica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52628/89.4.12408\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta orthopaedica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52628/89.4.12408","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

评估 DRF(桡骨远端骨折)术后手术和非手术干预随着时间推移在 PRWE(患者相关腕部评估)方面的差异的试验并不多见。DASH(手臂、肩部和手部残疾)问卷调查显示,手术干预的中期改善幅度大于非手术干预。然而,一项研究发现,在 DRFs 方面,PRWE 可被视为优于 DASH 问卷,因为它对腕部疼痛和功能具有更强的特异性。由于数据相互矛盾,因此很难确定以 PRWE 作为恢复指标,手术与非手术治疗 DRF 的优劣。我们在 PubMed 和 Cochrane 上搜索了截至 8 月 31 日的随机对照试验,报告了 3 个月和 12 个月的 PRWE。数据由两名研究人员提取。使用非配对 T 检验评估了手术和非手术干预后随着时间推移 PRWE 的差异。共筛选出 1226 份记录。有 817 名参与者参与的 4 项研究符合资格标准并进行了分析。发现手术干预后 3 个月的 PRWE 明显较低(p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Surgical vs Non-surgical interventions for distal radius fractures: a quantitative analysis of Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation measures.

Trials to assess differences in PRWE (Patient Related Wrist Evaluation) over time, for both surgical and non-surgical interventions post DRFs (distal radius fractures) are rare. The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) questionnaire has been shown to be improved by a greater margin in the medium term for surgical interventions, than non surgical interventions. However, a study found that PRWE can be considered superior to the DASH questionnaire for DRFs, due to greater specificity to wrist pain and function. Conflicting data makes it difficult to determine surgical vs non-surgical superiority for DRF's over time with PRWE as a recovery metric. PubMed and Cochrane were searched for randomised controlled trials up to 31.8.23, reporting PRWE over 3, and 12 months. Data was extracted by 2 researchers. The differences in PRWE over time post surgical and non-surgical interventions was assessed using unpaired T testing. 1226 records were screened. 4 studies enrolling 817 participants met the eligibility criteria and were analysed. Significantly lower PRWE in surgical intervention has been identified at the 3 month mark (p<0.001). There was greater significant change in non-surgical intervention between months 3 and 12 (p<0.001). Change in PRWE over time may be a good indicator of functional outcomes in DRFs post surgical or non-surgical interventions. This could inform future clinical trial design and surgical decision-making. Further work is required to design even more user-friendly and digital patient- reported outcomes specifically for DRFs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta orthopaedica Belgica
Acta orthopaedica Belgica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Clavicular tunnel widening after acromioclavicular joint reconstruction: comparison between single and double clavicular tunnel techniques. Patients' perspective of fast-track total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. Advanced osteoarthritis of the hip as reason for extensive asymmetric leg edema: a rare case report and review of the literature. Patient with knee osteoarthritis demonstrates improved knee adduction moment after knee joint distraction: a case report. Cubital tunnel release with Wide Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet (WALANT) technique in an outpatient setting is safe and effective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1