Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults (Review)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Early mobilisation within 1 week versus immobilisation for 3 weeks, Outcome 6 Frozen shoulder. Review: Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults Comparison: 1 Early mobilisation within 1 week versus immobilisation for 3 weeks Outcome: 6 Frozen shoulder Study or subgroup Early
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Gilchrist bandage versus ’Classic’ Desault bandage, Outcome 1 Problems with bandages. Review: Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults Comparison: 3 Gilchrist bandage versus ’Classic’ Desault bandage Outcome: 1 Problems with bandages Study or subgroup Gilchrist Desault Risk Ratio Risk Ratio 1 Application of bandage was uncomfortable n/N n/N M-H,Fixed,95% CI M-H,Fixed,95% CI Rommens 1993 4/14 7/14 0.57 [ 0.21, 1.52 ] 2 Premature bandage removal Rommens 1993 0/14 2/12 0.17 [ 0.01, 3.29 ] 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Favours Gilchrist Favours Desault Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Gilchrist bandage versus ’Classic’ Desault bandage, Outcome 2 Fracture displacement by 3 weeks. Review: Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults Comparison: 3 Gilchrist bandage versus ’Classic’ Desault bandage Outcome: 2 Fracture displacement by 3 weeks Study or subgroup Gilchrist Desault Risk Ratio Risk Ratio n/N n/N M-H,Fixed,95% CI M-H,Fixed,95% CI Rommens 1993 2/14 0/12 4.33 [ 0.23, 82.31 ] Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults (Review) Copyright © 2008 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Favours Gilchrist Favours Desault 44
Page 1 and 2: Interventions for treating proximal
Page 3 and 4: Analysis 6.2. Comparison 6 Cerclage
Page 5 and 6: Operative reduction compared with c
Page 7 and 8: M E T H O D S Criteria for consider
Page 9 and 10: Table 1. Methodological quality ass
Page 11 and 12: Table 2. Numbers and status of stud
Page 13 and 14: Revay 1992), and blinded assessment
Page 15 and 16: a later report of the trial which i
Page 17 and 18: y Zyto 1997 to produce any better l
Page 19 and 20: prothetische Humeruskopfersatz bei
Page 21 and 22: Bernstein 1996 Bernstein J, Alder L
Page 23 and 24: C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F S
Page 25 and 26: Hoellen 1997 (Continued) Power Haem
Page 27 and 28: Livesley 1992 Methods Method of ran
Page 29 and 30: Revay 1992 (Continued) Allocation c
Page 31 and 32: Wirbel 1999 (Continued) Interventio
Page 33 and 34: (Continued) Flannery 2006 This is l
Page 35 and 36: Fjalestad 2007 (Continued) Notes In
Page 37 and 38: Sharma 2000 (Continued) Notes Extra
Page 39 and 40: 5.8 More accidents (e.g. dropping t
Page 41 and 42: 2.8 Unable to carry 5 kg at 50 mont
Page 43 and 44: Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Early mo
Page 45: Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Early mo
Page 49 and 50: Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Instruct
Page 51 and 52: Analysis 4.6. Comparison 4 Instruct
Page 57 and 58: Analysis 7.4. Comparison 7 Hemi-art
Page 59 and 60: Analysis 8.2. Comparison 8 Hemi-art
Page 61 and 62: A P P E N D I C E S Appendix 1. Sea
Page 63 and 64: W H A T ’ S N E W Last assessed a
Page 65: I N D E X T E R M S Medical Subject

Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults (Review)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?