To systematically review qualitative studies of patients with distal tibia or ankle fracture, and explore their experience of injury and recovery. We undertook a systematic review of qualitative studies. Five databases were searched from inception to 1 February 2022. All titles and abstracts were screened, and a subset were independently assessed. Methodological quality was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. The GRADE-CERQual checklist was used to assign confidence ratings. Thematic synthesis was used to analyze data with the identification of codes which were drawn together to form subthemes and then themes.Aims
Methods
The primary aim of this study was to present the mid-term follow-up of a multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) which compared the functional outcome following routine removal (RR) to the outcome following on-demand removal (ODR) of the syndesmotic screw (SS). All patients included in the ‘ROutine vs on DEmand removal Of the syndesmotic screw’ (RODEO) trial received the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Hindfoot Score (AOFAS), Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). Out of the 152 patients, 109 (71.7%) completed the mid-term follow-up questionnaire and were included in this study (53 treated with RR and 56 with ODR). Median follow-up was 50 months (interquartile range 43.0 to 56.0) since the initial surgical treatment of the acute syndesmotic injury. The primary outcome of this study consisted of the OMAS scores of the two groups.Aims
Methods
To describe outcome reporting variation and trends in non-pharmacological randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of distal tibia and/or ankle fractures. Five electronic databases and three clinical trial registries were searched (January 2000 to February 2022). Trials including patients with distal tibia and/or ankle fractures without concomitant injuries were included. One reviewer conducted all searches, screened titles and abstracts, assessed eligibility, and completed data extraction; a random 10% subset were independently assessed and extracted by a second reviewer at each stage. All extracted outcomes were mapped to a modified version of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework. The quality of outcome reporting (reproducibility) was assessed.Aims
Methods
