Operative vs non-operative management of displaced proximal humeral fractures in the elderly: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Table 1 Characteristics chart of included studies

Ref.	Year	Country	Funding	Size	Age(mean)	Male (%)	Fracture classification system	Fracture type	Operative intervention	Non-operative intervention	Short term follow-up (mo)	Long term follow-up (mo)
Boons et al[24]	2012	The Netherlands	Industry funding	50	79.9	2	Neer	3 or 4 part fractures	Hemiar- throplasty	Immobilization of the shoulder	3	12
Fjalestad et al[9,25]	2010	Norway	Government funding	50	72.71	12	OTA	3 or 4 part fractures	ORIF with locking plate	Immobilization in a modified Velpeau bandage	3	12
Olerud et al[26]	2011	Sweden	Government funding	55	76.71	14.5	Neer	4 part fractures	Hemiar- throplasty	Immobilization by slings	4	12
Olerud et al[27]	2011	Sweden	Government funding	59	73.91	18.6	Neer	3 part fractures	ORIF-locking plate	Immobilization by slings	4	12
Stableforth[28]	1984	England	Not reported	32	67.91	21.9	Neer	4 part fractures	Neer prosthesis	Closed manipulation	Not applicable	Not applicable
Zyto et al[29]	1997	Sweden	Not reported	40	74	12.5	Neer	3 or 4 part fractures	ORIF-tension band technique	Immobilization by sling	No short term follow-up	50

¹Average weighted mean of the two arms. ORIF: Open reduction and internal fixation.