Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating acromioclavicular dislocation of the shoulder in adults
Información
- DOI:
- https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007429Copiar DOI
- Base de datos:
-
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Versión publicada:
-
- 08 octubre 2008see what's new
- Tipo:
-
- Intervention
- Etapa:
-
- Protocol
- Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
-
Grupo Cochrane de Lesiones óseas, articulares y musculares
- Copyright:
-
- Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Cifras del artículo
Altmetric:
Citado por:
Autores
Contributions of authors
The first drafts of this protocol were prepared by Marcel J S Tamaoki, Mario Lenza and João C Belloti. The search strategy was developed by Marcel J S Tamaoki and Mario Lenza. All authors commented on and approved the final version of the protocol.
Sources of support
Internal sources
-
Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Brazil.
External sources
-
No sources of support supplied
Declarations of interest
None known.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Fiona Clay, Jame Fraser‐Moodie, Helen Handoll and Vicki Livingstone for valuable comments on the protocol. Thanks too to Lindsey Elstub and Joanne Elliott at the editorial base of the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group for their assistance in preparing the protocol.
Version history
Published | Title | Stage | Authors | Version |
2019 Oct 11 | Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating acromioclavicular dislocation of the shoulder in adults | Review | Marcel JS Tamaoki, Mário Lenza, Fabio T Matsunaga, João Carlos Belloti, Marcelo H Matsumoto, Flávio Faloppa | |
2010 Aug 04 | Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating acromioclavicular dislocation of the shoulder in adults | Review | Marcel Jun S Tamaoki, João Carlos Belloti, Mário Lenza, Marcelo Hide Matsumoto, Joao Baptista Gomes dos Santos, Flávio Faloppa | |
2008 Oct 08 | Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating acromioclavicular dislocation of the shoulder in adults | Protocol | Marcel Jun S Tamaoki, Joao Carlos Belloti, Mário Lenza, Marcelo Hide Matsumoto, Joao Baptista Gomes dos Santos, Flávio Faloppa | |
Keywords
MeSH
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords
Medical Subject Headings Check Words
Adult; Female; Humans; Male;
PICO
Type | Description |
Type I | A mild injury involving spraining the acromioclavicular ligaments while leaving the joint intact. |
Type II | Injury where the acromioclavicular ligaments are torn and acromioclavicular joint is disrupted, while the coracoclavicular ligaments are intact. |
Type III | Injury involves complete tearing of both the acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligaments with 100% dislocation of the joint. |
Type IV | Injury is a complete acromioclavicular dislocation with posterior displacement of the clavicle through or into the trapezius fascia |
Type V | Injury is a complete acromioclavicular dislocation with 100% to 300% superior dislocation of the clavicle. It can involve significant disruption of the deltotrapezial fascia. |
Type VI | Injury involves inferior displacement of the clavicle into a subacromial or subcoracoid position. |
Items | Scores | Notes |
(1) Was the assigned treatment adequately concealed prior to allocation? | Yes = method did not allow disclosure of assignment. | Cochrane code (see Handbook): Clearly yes = A; Not sure = B; Clearly no = C. |
(2) Were the outcomes of participants who withdrew described and included in the analysis (intention‐to‐treat)? | Yes = withdrawals well described and accounted for in analysis. | |
(3) Were the outcome assessors blinded to treatment status? | Yes = effective action taken to blind assessors. | |
(4) Were important baseline characteristics reported and comparable? | Yes = good comparability of groups, or confounding adjusted for in analysis. | Although many characteristics including hand dominance are important, the principal confounders are considered to be age, gender, type of lesion (dislocation or subluxation). |
(5) Were the trial participants blind to assignment status after allocation? | Yes = effective action taken to blind participants. | |
(6) Were the treatment providers blind to assignment status? | Yes = effective action taken to blind treatment providers. | |
(7) Were care programmes, other than the trial options, identical? | Yes = care programmes clearly identical. | Examples of clinically important differences in other interventions are: time of intervention, duration of intervention, difference in rehabilitation. |
(8) Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria for entry clearly defined? | Yes = clearly defined (including type of fracture). | |
(9) Were the outcome measures used clearly defined? | Yes = clearly defined. | |
(10) Were the accuracy and precision, with consideration of observer variation, of the outcome measures adequate; and were these clinically useful and did they include active follow up? | Yes = optimal. | |
(11) Was the timing (e.g. duration of surveillance) clinically appropriate? | Yes = optimal (> 1 year) |