Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Association Between Radiological and Patient-Reported Outcome in Adults With a Displaced Distal Radius Fracture: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between alignment, as determined by plain radiographs, and patient-reported outcome in adults with a displaced distal radius fracture. We also determined which specific radiological parameters are associated with patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search to identify studies that evaluated the association between radiological and patient-reported outcome in adults with a displaced distal radius fracture and who had an average follow-up of at least 12 months. Radiological outcome was determined as acceptable or unacceptable reduction, defined by radiological parameters. Patient-reported outcome was assessed with the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, the Quick-Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, and the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation questionnaires.

RESULTS: Sixteen articles were included, comprising 1,961 patients with a distal radius fracture. A significant mean difference of 4.15 points in patient-reported outcomes (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-8.04) was found in favor of an acceptable radiological reduction. Moreover, a significant mean difference of 5.38 points in patient-reported outcomes (95% CI, 1.69-9.07) was found in favor of an acceptable dorsal angulation, and 6.72 points (95% CI, 2.16-11.29) in favor of an acceptable ulnar variance.

CONCLUSIONS: An unacceptable radiological reduction is significantly associated with worse patient-reported outcomes in adults with a displaced distal radius fracture. Dorsal angulation and ulnar variance are the most important radiological parameters. Despite the statistical significance, the mean difference of each association did not meet the threshold of the minimally clinically important difference and therefore were unlikely to be clinically important.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic IV.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

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 Toggle icon

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