We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Effectiveness of reduction maneuvers in the treatment of nursemaid's elbow: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2017 January
BACKGROUND/AIM: Nursemaid's elbow usually occurs in young children when longitudinal traction is placed on the arm. Several manipulative maneuvers have been described, although, the most effective treatment technique is yet unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the two most commonly performed maneuvers (supination-flexion and hyperpronation) in the treatment of nursemaid's elbow.
METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify randomized controlled trials comparing supination-flexion and hyperpronation. Data were extracted and pooled independently by two authors. Methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed. Meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model in case of homogeneity across studies, and using a random-effect model in case of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was calculated with the χ2 test and inconsistency in study effects across trials was quantified by I2 values.
RESULTS: Seven randomized trials, including 701 patients (62% female), were included. A total of 350 patients were treated with the hyperpronation maneuver versus 351 patients who underwent the supination-flexion maneuver. Meta-analysis showed that hyperpronation was more effective than supination-flexion (risk ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.49; I2 , 35%). The absolute risk difference between maneuvers was 26% in favor of hyperpronation, resulting in a number needed to treat of 4 patients. Trials lacked blinding of assessors and universal pain measures.
CONCLUSIONS: Hyperpronation was more effective in terms of success rate and seems to be less painful compared to the supination-flexion maneuver in children with nursemaid's elbow.
METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify randomized controlled trials comparing supination-flexion and hyperpronation. Data were extracted and pooled independently by two authors. Methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed. Meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model in case of homogeneity across studies, and using a random-effect model in case of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was calculated with the χ2 test and inconsistency in study effects across trials was quantified by I2 values.
RESULTS: Seven randomized trials, including 701 patients (62% female), were included. A total of 350 patients were treated with the hyperpronation maneuver versus 351 patients who underwent the supination-flexion maneuver. Meta-analysis showed that hyperpronation was more effective than supination-flexion (risk ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.49; I2 , 35%). The absolute risk difference between maneuvers was 26% in favor of hyperpronation, resulting in a number needed to treat of 4 patients. Trials lacked blinding of assessors and universal pain measures.
CONCLUSIONS: Hyperpronation was more effective in terms of success rate and seems to be less painful compared to the supination-flexion maneuver in children with nursemaid's elbow.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app