↓ Skip to main content

Operative versus non-operative treatment in complex proximal humeral fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Operative versus non-operative treatment in complex proximal humeral fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
SpringerPlus, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40064-015-1522-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lin Xie, Fan Ding, Zhigang Zhao, Yan Chen, Danmou Xing

Abstract

Whether operative treatment for complex proximal humeral fractures (CPHFs) has a greater benefit over non-operative treatment remains controversial. There is no consensus on the optimal treatment in elderly patients with CPHFs. This updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to investigate whether operative treatment is superior to non-operative treatment in CPHFs. The authors searched RCTs in the electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Embase, Springer Link, Web of Knowledge, OVID and Google Scholar) from their establishment to July 2015. Researches on operative and non-operative treatment for CPHFs were selected in this meta-analysis. The quality of all studies was assessed and effective data was pooled for this meta-analysis. Outcome measurements were functional status include constant scores (CS scores) and disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand scores (DASH scores), total complication rates and healthy-related quality of life. The meta-analysis was performed with software revman 5.3. Nine articles with a total 518 patients (average age 70.93) met inclusion criteria. Patients were followed up for at least 1 year in all the studies. No statistical differences were found between operative and non-operative treatment in CS scores at 12 mo (months) [MD 1.06 95 % CI (-3.51, 5.62)] and 24 mo [MD -0.61 95 % CI (-5.87, 4.65)]. There are also no statistical differences between operative and non-operative treatment in DASH scores at 12 mo [MD -4.51 95 % CI (-13.49, 4.47)] and 24 mo [MD -7.43 95 % CI (-16.14, 1.27)]. Statistical differences were found between operative and non-operative treatment in total complication rates [RR 1.55, 95 % CI (1.24, 1.94)]. Statistical differences in EQ-5D at 24 mo [MD 0.15, 95 % CI (0.05, 0.24)] were found between operative and non-operative treatment but no statistical differences were found in ED-5D at 12 mo [MD 0.08, 95 % CI (-0.01, 0.17)], 15D at 12 mo [MD 0.02, 95 % CI (-0.68, 0.73)] and 15D at 24 mo [MD 0.02, 95 % CI (-0.07, 0.83)]. Operative treatments did not significantly improve the functional outcome and healthy-related quality of life in elderly patients. Instead, Operative treatment for CPHFs led to higher incidence of postoperative complications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 15 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Psychology 1 2%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Unknown 20 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 November 2015.
All research outputs
#18,431,664
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,260
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,925
of 386,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#99
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.