↓ Skip to main content

Manipulative interventions for reducing pulled elbow in young children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
40 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Manipulative interventions for reducing pulled elbow in young children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007759.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marjolein Krul, Johannes C van der Wouden, Emma J Kruithof, Lisette WA van Suijlekom-Smit, Bart W Koes

Abstract

Pulled elbow (nursemaid's elbow) is a common injury in young children. It often results from a sudden pull on the arm, usually by an adult or taller person, which pulls the radius through the annular ligament, resulting in subluxation (partial dislocation) of the radial head. It can also be caused by a fall or twist. The child experiences sudden acute pain and loss of function in the affected arm. Pulled elbow is usually treated by manual reduction of the subluxed radial head. Various manoeuvres can be applied; most commonly, supination of the forearm, often combined with flexion, and (hyper-)pronation. It is unclear which is most successful. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009 and last updated in 2011. To compare the effects (benefits and harms) of the different methods used to manipulate pulled elbow in young children. We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDro, clinical trial registers and reference lists of articles. Date of last search: September 2016. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating manipulative interventions for pulled elbow were included. Our primary outcome was failure at the first attempt, necessitating further treatment. Two review authors independently evaluated trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model. Overall, nine trials with 906 children (all younger than seven years old and 58% of whom were female) were included, of which five trials were newly identified in this update. Eight trials were performed in emergency departments or ambulatory care centres, and one was performed in a tertiary paediatric orthopaedic unit. Four trials were conducted in the USA, three in Turkey, one in Iran, and one in Spain. Five trials were at high risk of selection bias because allocation was not concealed and all trials were at high risk of detection bias due to the lack of assessor blinding. Eight trials compared hyperpronation with supination-flexion. We found low-quality evidence that hyperpronation resulted in less failure at first attempt than supination-flexion (9.2% versus 26.4%, risk ratio (RR) 0.35; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.50; 811 participants, 8 studies). Based on an illustrative risk of 268 failures at first attempt per 1000 children treated using supination-flexion, this amounted to 174 fewer failures per 1000 children treated using hyperpronation (95% CI 134 to 201 fewer). Based on risk differences data, we also estimated a number needed to treat of 6 (95% CI 5 to 8); this means that six children would need to be treated with the hyperpronation method rather than the supination-flexion method to avoid one additional failure at the first attempt.The very low-quality evidence (from four studies) for pain during or after manipulation means that it is uncertain whether there is or is not a difference between pronation and supination-flexion. There was very low-quality evidence from six studies that repeat pronation may be more effective than repeat supination-flexion for the second attempt after initial failure. The remaining outcomes were either not reported (adverse effects, recurrence) or unsuitable for pooling (ultimate failure). Ultimate failure, reported for the overall population only because of the differences in the study protocols with respect to what to do after the first attempt failed, ranged from no ultimate failures in two studies to six failures (4.1% of 148 episodes) in one study.One trial compared supination-extension versus supination-flexion. It provided very low-quality evidence (downgraded three levels for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision) of no clear difference in failure at first attempt between the two methods. There was low-quality evidence from eight small trials that the pronation method may be more effective at first attempt than the supination method for manipulating pulled elbow in young children. For other outcomes, no conclusions could be drawn either because of very low-quality evidence or the outcomes not being reported. We suggest that a high-quality randomised clinical trial comparing hyperpronation and supination-flexion is required to provide definitive evidence. We recommend that this is preceded by a survey among clinicians to establish the extent of clinical equipoise and to optimise the study design and recruitment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 25%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 21 27%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 15%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Psychology 3 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 17 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 04 February 2020.
All research outputs
#561,132
of 14,453,232 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,630
of 10,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,156
of 268,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#55
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,453,232 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,975 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 268,302 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.