↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for treating ankle fractures in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

2 blogs
23 tweeters
1 Wikipedia page


9 Dimensions

Readers on

142 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.
Interventions for treating ankle fractures in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010836.pub2
Pubmed ID

Denise E Yeung, Xueli Jia, Clare A Miller, Simon L Barker


Ankle fractures, which usually occur after a twisting incident, are a diverse collection of injuries with different levels of complexity and severity. They have an incidence of 1 in 1000 a year in children. Treatment generally involves splints and casts for minor fractures and surgical fixation with screws, plates and pins followed by immobilisation for more serious fractures. To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of different interventions for treating ankle fractures in children. We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (22 September 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to September Week 2 2015), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (21 September 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 2015 Week 38), CINAHL (1937 to 22 September 2015), trial registers (17 February 2015), conference proceedings and reference lists of articles. We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating interventions for treating ankle fractures in children. Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full articles for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and collected data. We undertook no meta-analysis. We included three randomised controlled trials reporting results for 189 children, all of whom had a clinical diagnosis of a "low risk" ankle fracture. These were predominantly classified as undisplaced Salter-Harris type I fractures of the distal fibula. All three trials compared non-surgical management options. The three trials were at high risk of bias, primarily relating to the impracticality of blinding participants and treating clinicians to the allocated interventions.Two trials compared the Aircast Air-Stirrup ankle brace versus a rigid cast, which was a removable fibreglass posterior splint in one trial (trial A) and a below-knee fibreglass walking cast in the other trial (trial B). In trial A, both devices were removed at around two weeks. In trial B, removal of the brace was optional after five days, while the walking cast was removed after three weeks. There was low-quality evidence of clinically important differences in function scores at four weeks in favour of the brace groups of both trials. Function was measured using the Activities Scale for Kids-performance (ASKp; score range 0 to 100, higher scores mean better function) in trial A and using a modified version of the ASKp score (range 0 to 100%, higher percentages mean better function) in trial B. The results for trial A (40 participants) were median 91.9 in the brace group versus 84.2 in the splint group. The results for trial B (104 participants) were 91.3% versus 85.3%; mean difference (MD) 6.00% favouring brace (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38% to 10.62%). Trial B indicated that 5% amounted to a clinically relevant difference in the modified ASKp score. Neither trial reported on unacceptable anatomy or related outcomes or long-term follow-up. There was very low-quality evidence relating to adverse events, none of which were serious. Trial A found twice as many children with pressure-related complications in the brace group (10 of 20 versus 5 of 20). In contrast, trial B found four times as many children in the cast group had adverse outcomes assessed in terms of an unscheduled visit to a healthcare provider (4 of 54 versus 16 of 50). Both trials linked some of the adverse events in the brace group with the failure to wear a protective sock. There was very low-quality evidence indicating an earlier return to pre-injury activity in the brace groups in both trials. Trial B provided low-quality evidence that children much prefer five days or more wearing an ankle brace than three weeks immobilised in a walking ankle cast. There was moderate-quality evidence of a lack of difference between the two groups in pain at four weeks.The third trial compared the Tubigrip bandage plus crutches and advice versus a plaster of Paris walking cast for two weeks and reported results at four weeks' follow-up for 45 children with an inversion injury of the ankle. The trial found very low-quality evidence of little difference in pain and function between the two groups, measured using a non-validated pain and function score at four weeks. The trial did not report on adverse effects. There was very low-quality evidence of an earlier return to normal activities, averaging six days, in children treated with Tubigrip (mean 14.17 days for Tubigrip versus 20.19 days for cast; MD -6.02 days, 95% CI -8.92 to -3.12 days).Recent evidence from magnetic resonance imaging studies of the main category of injury evaluated in these three trials suggests that most of the injuries in these trials were sprains or bone bruises rather than fractures of the distal fibular growth plate. There is low-quality evidence of a quicker recovery of self reported function at four weeks in children with clinically diagnosed low-risk ankle fractures who are treated with an ankle brace compared with those treated with a rigid cast, especially a non-removable walking cast. There is otherwise a lack of evidence from randomised controlled trials to inform clinical practice for children with ankle fractures. Research to identify and address priority questions on the treatment of these common fractures is needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 139 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 20%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 10%
Student > Postgraduate 14 10%
Other 29 20%
Unknown 25 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 20%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 4 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 36 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 23 April 2020.
All research outputs
of 15,488,719 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 265,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,488,719 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,200 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 265,886 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 93% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.