↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of treatment outcomes between nonsurgical and surgical treatment of distal radius fracture in elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of treatment outcomes between nonsurgical and surgical treatment of distal radius fracture in elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00423-015-1324-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ji-Hui Ju, Guang-Zhe Jin, Guan-Xing Li, Hai-Yang Hu, Rui-Xing Hou

Abstract

The best treatment of distal radius fractures (DRFs) in the elderly is uncertain. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of DRFs in persons 65 years of age or older. Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched until April 27, 2015 using the following search terms: distal radius fracture, conservative treatment, nonoperative treatment, nonsurgical treatment, surgical treatment, operative, elderly, and older. The primary outcome measure was DASH score, and secondary outcomes were functional and radiological assessments. The standard difference in post-treatment means was calculated for the outcomes to compare the two groups. Of 59 articles identified, eight studies with a total of 440 patients in the surgical groups and 449 in the control groups were included in the analysis. No significant differences in DASH score, VAS pain score, grip strength, wrist extension, pronation, or supination, and ulnar deviation were noted between the groups. The nonsurgical group had significantly greater wrist flexion, radial deviation, and ulnar variance and less radial inclination than the surgical group. Surgical and nonsurgical methods produce similar results in the treatment of DRFS in the elderly, and minor objective functional differences did not result an impact on subjective function outcome and quality of life.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 170 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 12%
Researcher 18 11%
Other 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Student > Bachelor 11 6%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 66 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 74 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 03 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,961,201
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#214
of 1,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,038
of 266,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#2
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
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 266,198 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.