28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Intramedullary Nail Versus Plate Fixation for Humeral Shaft Fractures: A Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-analyses

      review-article
      , MD, , MD, , MD, , MD
      Medicine
      Wolters Kluwer Health

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Multiple meta-analyses have been published to compare intramedullary nail and plate for treating humeral shaft fractures; however, results are discordant.

          The purposes of current study were to perform a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing intramedullary nail and plate fixation for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures, to appraise the methodological quality and the quality of reporting of meta-analyses, and to propose a guide through the currently discordant available evidence.

          This systematic review was performed according to the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis. The literature was systematically reviewed to identify meta-analyses comparing intramedullary nail and plate fixation for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Only meta-analyses exclusively including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) met eligibility criteria in this systematic review. Methodological quality for each included study was assessed using the Oxford Levels of Evidence and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews Instrument. We extracted all variables from the included studies and listed the results reported by them. Heterogeneity information of each variable was extracted for the included studies. An I 2 of <60% is accepted in this systematic review. The Jadad algorithm was then applied to determine which meta-analyses provided the best evidence.

          Seven studies met the inclusion criteria in this study. All studies included RCTs or quasi-RCT and were Level II of evidence. Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews scores varied from 6 to 10 with a median of 7.86. Heterogeneity of each outcome was acceptable in those meta-analyses pooled results. The Jadad algorithm suggested that the meta-analyses can be selected based on the search strategies and application of selection. As a result, 2 meta-analyses with more RCTs were selected in this systematic review. The best available evidence suggested that the differences between intramedullary nail and plate fixation were not significant in fracture union, radial nerve injury, and infection. But intramedullary nail significantly increased the risk of shoulder complications (shoulder impingement and restriction of shoulder movement) and reoperation.

          We concluded that plate fixation is superior to intramedullary nail for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          External Validation of a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)

          Background Thousands of systematic reviews have been conducted in all areas of health care. However, the methodological quality of these reviews is variable and should routinely be appraised. AMSTAR is a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews. Methodology AMSTAR was used to appraise 42 reviews focusing on therapies to treat gastro-esophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, and other acid-related diseases. Two assessors applied the AMSTAR to each review. Two other assessors, plus a clinician and/or methodologist applied a global assessment to each review independently. Conclusions The sample of 42 reviews covered a wide range of methodological quality. The overall scores on AMSTAR ranged from 0 to 10 (out of a maximum of 11) with a mean of 4.6 (95% CI: 3.7 to 5.6) and median 4.0 (range 2.0 to 6.0). The inter-observer agreement of the individual items ranged from moderate to almost perfect agreement. Nine items scored a kappa of >0.75 (95% CI: 0.55 to 0.96). The reliability of the total AMSTAR score was excellent: kappa 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.00) and Pearson's R 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98). The overall scores for the global assessment ranged from 2 to 7 (out of a maximum score of 7) with a mean of 4.43 (95% CI: 3.6 to 5.3) and median 4.0 (range 2.25 to 5.75). The agreement was lower with a kappa of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.40 to 0.88). Construct validity was shown by AMSTAR convergence with the results of the global assessment: Pearson's R 0.72 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.84). For the AMSTAR total score, the limits of agreement were −0.19±1.38. This translates to a minimum detectable difference between reviews of 0.64 ‘AMSTAR points’. Further validation of AMSTAR is needed to assess its validity, reliability and perceived utility by appraisers and end users of reviews across a broader range of systematic reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews.

            Systematic reviews are becoming prominent tools to guide health care decisions. As the number of published systematic reviews increases, it is common to find more than 1 systematic review addressing the same or a very similar therapeutic question. Despite the promise for systematic reviews to resolve conflicting results of primary studies, conflicts among reviews are now emerging. Such conflicts produce difficulties for decision-makers (including clinicians, policy-makers, researchers and patients) who rely on these reviews to help them make choices among alternative interventions when experts and the results of trials disagree. The authors provide an adjunct decision tool--a decision algorithm--to help decision-makers select from among discordant reviews.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Fractures of the shaft of the humerus. An epidemiological study of 401 fractures.

              We studied the epidemiology of 401 fractures of the shaft of the humerus in 397 patients aged 16 years or older. The incidence was 14.5 per 100,000 per year with a gradually increasing age-specific incidence from the fifth decade, reaching almost 60 per 100, 000 per year in the ninth decade. Most were closed fractures in elderly patients which had been sustained as the result of a simple fall. The age distribution in women was characterised by a peak in the eighth decade while that in men was more even. Simple fractures were by far the most common and most were located in the middle or proximal shaft. The incidence of palsy of the radial nerve was 8% and fractures in the middle and distal shaft were most likely to be responsible. Only 2% of the fractures were open and 8% were pathological. These figures are representative of a population with a low incidence of high-energy and penetrating trauma, which probably reflects the situation in most European countries.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                MEDI
                Medicine
                Wolters Kluwer Health
                0025-7974
                1536-5964
                March 2015
                20 March 2015
                : 94
                : 11
                : e599
                Affiliations
                From the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin (J-GZ, JW); Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Fourth People's Hospital of Shenyang City, Shenyang (CW); and Department of Hand Surgery, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, China (S-LK).
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Jia-Guo Zhao, MD, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tianjin Hospital, No. 406 Jiefang South Road, Hexi District, Tianjin 300211, China (e-mail: orthopaedic163.com); and Shi-Lian, Kan, MD, Department of Hand Surgery, Tianjin Hospital, No. 406 Jiefang South Road, Hexi District, Tianjin 300211, China (e-mail: Kanshilian@ 123456126.com ).
                Article
                00599
                10.1097/MD.0000000000000599
                4602489
                25789949
                4cec1447-95b7-49bf-a2f2-7d16ced86c5d
                Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0

                History
                : 27 January 2015
                : 5 February 2015
                : 5 February 2015
                Categories
                7100
                Article
                Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                Comments

                Comment on this article