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 rationale for exacting restoration of skeletal anatomy after unstable ankle fracture is to improve outcomes by reducing complications from malunion; however, current definitions of malunion lack confirmatory clinical evidence. Radiological (absolute radiological measurements aided by computer software) and clinical (clinical interpretation of radiographs) definitions of malunion were compared within the Ankle Injury Management (AIM) trial cohort, including people aged ≥ 60 years with an unstable ankle fracture. Linear regressions were used to explore the relationship between radiological malunion (RM) at six months and changes in function at three years. Function was assessed with the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), with a minimal clinically important difference set as six points, as per the AIM trial. Piecewise linear models were used to investigate new radiological thresholds which better explain symptom impact on ankle function.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
