Objectives. Current studies on the additional benefit of using computed tomography (CT) in order to evaluate the surgeons’ agreement on treatment plans for fracture are inconsistent. This inconsistency can be explained by a methodological phenomenon called ‘spectrum bias’, defined as the bias inherent when investigators choose a population lacking therapeutic uncertainty for evaluation. The aim of the study is to determine the influence of spectrum bias on the intra-observer agreement of treatment plans for fractures of the distal radius. Methods. Four surgeons evaluated 51 patients with displaced fractures of the distal radius at four time points: T1 and T2: conventional radiographs; T3 and T4: radiographs and additional CT scan (radiograph and CT). Choice of treatment plan (operative or non-operative) and therapeutic certainty (five-point scale: very uncertain to very certain) were rated. To determine the influence of spectrum bias, the intra-observer agreement was analysed, using Kappa statistics, for each degree of therapeutic certainty. . Results. In cases with high therapeutic certainty, intra-observer agreement based on radiograph was almost perfect (0.86 to 0.90), but decreased to moderate based on a radiograph and CT (0.47 to 0.60). In cases with high therapeutic uncertainty, intra-observer agreement was slight at best (-0.12 to 0.19), but increased to moderate based on the radiograph and CT (0.56 to 0.57). Conclusion. Spectrum bias influenced the outcome of this agreement study on treatment plans. An additional CT scan improves the intra-observer agreement on treatment plans for a fracture of the distal radius only when there is therapeutic uncertainty. Reporting and analysing intra-observer agreement based on the surgeon’s level of certainty is an appropriate method to minimise spectrum bias. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2015;4:190–194

Objectives. To investigate the differences of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of complex AO Type C distal radius fractures between two different models of a single implant type. Methods. A total of 136 patients who received either a 2.4 mm (n = 61) or 3.5 mm (n = 75) distal radius locking compression plate (LCP DR) using a volar approach were followed over two years. The main outcome measurements included motion, grip strength, pain, and the scores of Gartland and Werley, the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH). Differences between the treatment groups were evaluated using regression analysis and the likelihood ratio test with significance based on the Bonferroni corrected p-value of < 0.003. Results. The groups were similar with respect to baseline and injury characteristics as well as general surgical details. The risk of experiencing a complication after ORIF with a LCP DR 2.4 mm was 18% (n = 11) compared with 11% (n = 8) after receiving a LCP DR 3.5 mm (p = 0.45). Wrist function was also similar between the cohorts based on the mean ranges of movement (all p > 0.052) and grip strength measurements relative to the contralateral healthy side (p = 0.583). In addition, DASH and SF-36 component scores as well as pain were not significantly different between the treatment groups throughout the two-year period (all p ≥ 0.005). No patient from either treatment group had a step-off > 2 mm. Conclusions. Differences in plate design do not influence the overall final outcome of fracture fixation using LCP.

Objectives

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are often used to evaluate the outcome of treatment in patients with distal radial fractures. Which PROM to select is often based on assessment of measurement properties, such as validity and reliability. Measurement properties are assessed in clinimetric studies, and results are often reviewed without considering the methodological quality of these studies. Our aim was to systematically review the methodological quality of clinimetric studies that evaluated measurement properties of PROMs used in patients with distal radial fractures, and to make recommendations for the selection of PROMs based on the level of evidence of each individual measurement property.