Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults

This is not the most recent version

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000434.pub3Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 12 December 2012see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2012 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Helen HG Handoll

    Correspondence to: Health and Social Care Institute, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Benjamin J Ollivere

    Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK

  • Katie E Rollins

    Department of General Surgery, Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK

Contributions of authors

For the sixth update (seventh version), Helen Handoll initiated the update by extending the search for trials and relevant materials, contacted trialists, performed most of data entry and prepared the first full draft. All three authors screened and selected studies, and assessed risk of bias and extracted data for the newly included trials. Katie Rollins also entered data into RevMan. Both Benjamin Ollivere and Katie Rollins provided feedback on interim drafts and contributed to the final manuscript.

Helen Handoll is the guarantor of the review.

The summaries of the contributions of authors for previous versions of the review are presented in Appendix 3.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • University of Teesside, Middlesbrough, UK.

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

None known. Helen Handoll is a member of the trial management group of an ongoing trial (ProFHER); arrangements will be made for independent review of this trial when completed.

Acknowledgements

We thank Xavier Griffin, David Limb and Yemisi Takwoingi for their helpful feedback at editorial review. We thank Catherine Deering for patiently supplying several search downloads for this version, Joanne Elliott for advice on searching and Lindsey Elstub for her editorial support.

We thank the following for further information on their research in this area for this update: Stig Brorson, Tore Fjalestad, Per Olerud, Matt Smith, Christine Voigt and Lei Zhang.

The acknowledgements for former versions of the review are presented in Appendix 3.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2022 Jun 21

Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults

Review

Helen HG Handoll, Joanne Elliott, Theis M Thillemann, Patricia Aluko, Stig Brorson

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000434.pub5

2015 Nov 11

Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults

Review

Helen HG Handoll, Stig Brorson

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000434.pub4

2012 Dec 12

Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults

Review

Helen HG Handoll, Benjamin J Ollivere, Katie E Rollins

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000434.pub3

2010 Dec 08

Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults

Review

Helen HG Handoll, Benjamin J Ollivere

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000434.pub2

2003 Oct 20

Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults

Review

Helen HG Handoll, Rajan Madhok

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000434

Differences between protocol and review

Update in 2012

Statement added to Types of participants clarifying the inclusion of trials with a small proportion of children.

A new secondary outcome was added to Types of outcome measures (Composite scores, whether validated or not, of subjective and objectively rated function and overall outcome). This was to distinguish explicitly between validated measures of patient‐reported function and activities of daily living and other commonly used composite scores such as the Constant score.

Examples of the secondary outcome 'Other complications' added.

Update in 2010

Most of the changes to methods in Issue 12, 2010 reflected the uptake of new methodology and reporting as described in the Handbook (Higgins 2008b). These include risk of bias assessment and more explicit reporting of data analysis and collection. Types of outcome measures have been revised to define primary and secondary outcomes. Patient‐reported measures of upper‐limb function and a separate category for serious adverse events have been added.

Update in 2007

The order of the main categories of outcome measures was altered in Issue 2, 2007 to reflect the greater priority given to functional and clinical outcomes.

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.