↓ Skip to main content

Rehabilitation for distal radial fractures in adults

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
347 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
Rehabilitation for distal radial fractures in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003324.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen HG Handoll, Joanne Elliott

Abstract

Fracture of the distal radius is a common clinical problem, particularly in older people with osteoporosis. There is considerable variation in the management, including rehabilitation, of these fractures. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2006. To examine the effects of rehabilitation interventions in adults with conservatively or surgically treated distal radial fractures. We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014; Issue 12), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro, OTseeker and other databases, trial registers, conference proceedings and reference lists of articles. We did not apply any language restrictions. The date of the last search was 12 January 2015. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs evaluating rehabilitation as part of the management of fractures of the distal radius sustained by adults. Rehabilitation interventions such as active and passive mobilisation exercises, and training for activities of daily living, could be used on their own or in combination, and be applied in various ways by various clinicians. The review authors independently screened and selected trials, and reviewed eligible trials. We contacted study authors for additional information. We did not pool data. We included 26 trials, involving 1269 mainly female and older patients. With few exceptions, these studies did not include people with serious fracture or treatment-related complications, or older people with comorbidities and poor overall function that would have precluded trial participation or required more intensive treatment. Only four of the 23 comparisons covered by these 26 trials were evaluated by more than one trial. Participants of 15 trials were initially treated conservatively, involving plaster cast immobilisation. Initial treatment was surgery (external fixation or internal fixation) for all participants in five trials. Initial treatment was either surgery or plaster cast alone in six trials. Rehabilitation started during immobilisation in seven trials and after post-immobilisation in the other 19 trials. As well as being small, the majority of the included trials had methodological shortcomings and were at high risk of bias, usually related to lack of blinding, that could affect the validity of their findings. Based on GRADE criteria for assessment quality, we rated the evidence for each of the 23 comparisons as either low or very low quality; both ratings indicate considerable uncertainty in the findings.For interventions started during immobilisation, there was very low quality evidence of improved hand function for hand therapy compared with instructions only at four days after plaster cast removal, with some beneficial effects continuing one month later (one trial, 17 participants). There was very low quality evidence of improved hand function in the short-term, but not in the longer-term (three months), for early occupational therapy (one trial, 40 participants), and of a lack of differences in outcome between supervised and unsupervised exercises (one trial, 96 participants).Four trials separately provided very low quality evidence of clinically marginal benefits of specific interventions applied in addition to standard care (therapist-applied programme of digit mobilisation during external fixation (22 participants); pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) during cast immobilisation (60 participants); cyclic pneumatic soft tissue compression using an inflatable cuff placed under the plaster cast (19 participants); and cross-education involving strength training of the non-fractured hand during cast immobilisation with or without surgical repair (39 participants)).For interventions started post-immobilisation, there was very low quality evidence from one study (47 participants) of improved function for a single session of physiotherapy, primarily advice and instructions for a home exercise programme, compared with 'no intervention' after cast removal. There was low quality evidence from four heterogeneous trials (30, 33, 66 and 75 participants) of a lack of clinically important differences in outcome in patients receiving routine physiotherapy or occupational therapy in addition to instructions for home exercises versus instructions for home exercises from a therapist. There was very low quality evidence of better short-term hand function in participants given physiotherapy than in those given either instructions for home exercises by a surgeon (16 participants, one trial) or a progressive home exercise programme (20 participants, one trial). Both trials (46 and 76 participants) comparing physiotherapy or occupational therapy versus a progressive home exercise programme after volar plate fixation provided low quality evidence in favour of a structured programme of home exercises preceded by instructions or coaching. One trial (63 participants) provided very low quality evidence of a short-term, but not persisting, benefit of accelerated compared with usual rehabilitation after volar plate fixation.For trials testing single interventions applied post-immobilisation, there was very low quality evidence of no clinically significant differences in outcome in patients receiving passive mobilisation (69 participants, two trials), ice (83 participants, one trial), PEMF (83 participants, one trial), PEMF plus ice (39 participants, one trial), whirlpool immersion (24 participants, one trial), and dynamic extension splint for patients with wrist contracture (40 participants, one trial), compared with no intervention. This finding applied also to the trial (44 participants) comparing PEMF versus ice, and the trial (29 participants) comparing manual oedema mobilisation versus traditional oedema treatment. There was very low quality evidence from single trials of a short-term benefit of continuous passive motion post-external fixation (seven participants), intermittent pneumatic compression (31 participants) and ultrasound (38 participants). The available evidence from RCTs is insufficient to establish the relative effectiveness of the various interventions used in the rehabilitation of adults with fractures of the distal radius. Further randomised trials are warranted. However, in order to optimise research effort and engender the large multicentre randomised trials that are required to inform practice, these should be preceded by research that aims to identify priority questions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 347 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 334 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 77 22%
Student > Bachelor 59 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 11%
Unspecified 38 11%
Student > Postgraduate 32 9%
Other 102 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 150 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 76 22%
Unspecified 52 15%
Psychology 11 3%
Sports and Recreations 10 3%
Other 48 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 11 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,476,703
of 13,043,924 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,089
of 10,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,305
of 247,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#150
of 273 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,043,924 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 247,281 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 273 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.