↓ Skip to main content

Surgical interventions for treating distal tibial metaphyseal fractures in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 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
Surgical interventions for treating distal tibial metaphyseal fractures in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010261.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kuo, Liang Tseng, Chi, Ching-Chi, Chuang, Ching-Hui

Abstract

The distal tibial metaphysis is located in the lower (distal) part of the tibia (shin bone). Fractures of this part of the tibia are most commonly due to a high energy injury in young men and to osteoporosis in older women. The optimal methods of surgical intervention for a distal tibial metaphyseal fracture remain uncertain. To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of surgical interventions for distal tibial metaphyseal fractures in adults. We planned to compare surgical versus non-surgical (conservative) treatment, and different methods of surgical intervention. We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (9 December 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1946 to November Week 3 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 Week 48), the Airiti Library (1967 to 2014 Week 8), China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database (1915 to 2014 Week 8), ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2014) and reference lists of included studies. We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical studies comparing surgical versus non-surgical (conservative) treatment or different surgical interventions for treating distal tibial metaphyseal fractures in adults. Our primary outcomes were patient-reported function and the need for secondary or revision surgery or substantive physiotherapy because of adverse outcomes. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias in each study and extracted data. We resolved disagreement by discussion and, where necessary, in consultation with a third author. Where appropriate we pooled data using the fixed-effect model. We included three randomised trials that evaluated intramedullary nailing versus plating in 213 participants, with useable data from 173 participants of whom 112 were male. The mean age of participants in individual studies ranged from 41 to 44 years. There were no trials comparing surgery with non-surgical treatment. The three included trials were at high risk of performance bias, with one trial also being at high risk of selection, detection and attrition bias. Overall, the quality of available evidence was rated as very low for all outcomes, meaning that we are very unsure about the estimates for all outcomes.The results of two large ongoing trials of nailing versus plating are likely to provide sufficient evidence to address this issue in a future update. Overall, there is either no or insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions on the use of surgery or the best surgical intervention for distal tibial metaphyseal fractures in adults. The available evidence, which is of very low quality, found no clinically important differences in function or pain, and did not confirm a difference in the need for re-operation or risk of complications between nailing and plating.The addition of evidence from two ongoing trials of nailing versus plating should inform this question in future updates. Further randomised trials are warranted on other issues, but should be preceded by research to identify priority questions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 33%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 33%
Librarian 1 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 67%
Unspecified 1 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 March 2015.
All research outputs
#2,579,609
of 6,360,323 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,886
of 7,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,352
of 160,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#167
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,360,323 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 59th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 160,203 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.