Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Meta-Anal. Feb 26, 2015; 3(1): 61-71
Published online Feb 26, 2015. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v3.i1.61
Published online Feb 26, 2015. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v3.i1.61
Table 1 Detailed assessment items of modified Jadad scale
Item assessed | Response | Score |
Was the study described as randomized? | Yes | 1 |
No | 0 | |
Was the method of randomization appropriate? | Yes | 1 |
No | -1 | |
Not described | 0 | |
Was the study described as blinded?1 | Yes | 1 |
No | 0 | |
Was the method of blinding appropriate? | Yes | 1 |
No | -1 | |
Not described | 0 | |
Was there a description of withdrawals and dropouts? | Yes | 1 |
No | 0 | |
Was there a clear description of the inclusion/exclusion criteria? | Yes | 1 |
No | 0 | |
Was the method used to assess adverse effects described? | Yes | 1 |
No | 0 | |
Was the method of statistical analysis described? | Yes | 1 |
No | 0 |
Table 2 General information of eligible randomized controlled trials
Ref. | location | Cases | Sex ratio | Mean age | Follow-up time | Main outcome measures |
(O/N) | (M/F) | (O/N) (yr) | (O/N) (yr) | |||
Parmar et al[6] | England | 25/31 | 48/8 | 48.3/48.8 | 2.1/1.8 | Pain level, site, pattern; walking problems; shoe wear; resuming pre-injury job; deformity; ankle and subtalar movement; foot function; complications |
O’Farrell et al[27] | Ireland | 12/12 | 20/4 | 33/38 | 1.3/1.2 | Shoe wear; pain-free walking distance; resuming pre-injury job; restoration of BÖhler angle and Gissane angle; motion range of ankle, subtalar and calcaneocuboid |
Chrintz et al[26] | Denmark | 33/35 | NR | NR | 1.5/1.5 | Radiography outcomes |
Thordarson et al[7] | United States | 15/11 | 21/5 | 35/36 | 1.4/1.2 | Functional assessment scale; motion rage of subtalar and ankle; gait analysis; restoration of BÖhler angle; pain; daily activity; shoe wear; walking; exercise; work; complications |
Buckley et al[8] | Canada | 206/218 | 381/43 | 41/39 | 3.0/3.0 | Complications; SF-36 scale; VAS; shoe wear; numbness |
Ibrahim et al[9] | United Kingdom | 15/11 | 21/5 | 61/58 | 15.2/14.8 | AOFAS score; FFI score; calcaneal fracture score; restoration of BÖhler angle and calcaneal height; arthritic grading of the subtalar joint |
Nouraei et al[16] | Iran | 31/30 | NR | 46/52 | 3.0/3.0 | Motion range of ankle and subtalar; X-ray findings; width of heel; pain in walking; shoe wear; swelling of foot and ankle; reflex systematic dystrophy |
Agren et al[15] | Sweden | 42/40 | 59/23 | 49/48 | 10 (8-12)1 | VAS; SF-36 scale; AOFAS score; OM scale; complications |
Table 3 Methodological assessment of eligible randomized controlled trials using modified Jadad scale
Item assessed | Parmar 1993 | O’Farrell 1993 | Chrintz 1993 | Thordarson 1996 | Buckley 2002 | Ibrahim 2007 | Nouraei 2011 | Agren 2013 |
Was the study described as randomized? | √ | × | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Was the method of randomization appropriate? | ? | ? | ? | √ | √ | ? | ? | √ |
Was the study described as blinded? | × | × | × | √ | √ | × | × | √ |
Was the method of blinding appropriate? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
Was there a description of withdrawals and dropouts? | × | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Was there a clear description of the inclusion/exclusion criteria? | × | × | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Was the method used to assess adverse effects described? | × | × | × | × | √ | × | × | × |
Was the method of statistical analysis described? | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
Total score | 2 | 2 | 4 | 5.5 | 6.5 | 4 | 4 | 5.5 |
Table 4 Results of sensitivity analysis
Outcomes | All eligible RCTs included | Only high score RCTs included | ||||||||
n | Patients | I2 | RR (95%CI) | P values | n | Patients | I2 | RR (95%CI) | P values | |
Resume pre-injury job | 3 | 106 | 55% | 1.53 (1.13, 2.07) | 0.006 | 1 | 26 | NA | 2.20 (0.97, 5.00) | 0.06 |
Residual pain | 3 | 143 | 80% | 0.73 (0.40, 1.36) | 0.33 | 2 | 87 | 93% | 0.63 (0.19, 2.11) | 0.45 |
Shoe fitting problems | 6 | 667 | 63% | 0.61 (0.37, 1.04) | 0.07 | 4 | 587 | 73% | 0.57 (0.27, 1.21) | 0.15 |
Limited walking distance | 2 | 82 | 71% | 0.88 (0.57, 1.36) | 0.56 | 1 | 26 | NA | 0.42 (0.16, 1.08) | 0.07 |
Complications | 4 | 588 | 0% | 1.60 (1.17, 2.18) | 0.003 | 3 | 532 | 1% | 1.59 (1.14, 2.22) | 0.006 |
-
Citation: Jiang N, Song HJ, Xie GP, Wang L, Liang CX, Qin CH, Yu B. Operative
vs nonoperative treatment of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fracture: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Meta-Anal 2015; 3(1): 61-71 - URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2308-3840/full/v3/i1/61.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v3.i1.61