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 [DOI: 10.13105/wjma.v3.i1.61]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Dr. Bin Yu, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No.1838, Guangzhou Avenue North, Guangzhou 510515, Guangdong Province, China. nanfanghot@126.com
Research Domain of This Article
Orthopedics
Article-Type of This Article
Meta-Analysis
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Shoe wear; pain-free walking distance; resuming pre-injury job; restoration of BÖhler angle and Gissane angle; motion range of ankle, subtalar and calcaneocuboid
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