Low‐value injury care in the adult orthopaedic trauma population: A systematic review. Issue 12 (30th November 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bérubé, Mélanie; Moore, Lynne; Tardif, Pierre‐Alexandre; Berry, Gregory; Belzile, Étienne; Lesieur, Martin; Paquet, Jérôme
• Is Part Of: International journal of clinical practice. Volume 75:Issue 12(2021)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2021-11-30
• Subjects: Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.15009
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1368-5031

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: Fifteen potentially low value practices in adult orthopaedic trauma care were previously identified in a scoping review. The aim of this study was to synthesise the evidence on these practices. Methods: We searched four databases for systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case series that assessed the effectiveness of selected practices. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews version 2 (AMSTAR‐2) for systematic reviews and the Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series. We evaluated risk of bias with the Cochrane revised tool for RCTs and the risk of bias in non‐randomised studies of interventions tool for observational studies. We summarised findings with measures of frequency and association for primary outcomes. Results: Of the 30, 670 records screened, 70 studies were retained. We identified high‐level evidence of lack of effectiveness or harm for routine initial imaging of ankle injury, orthosis for A0‐A3 thoracolumbar burst fracture in patients <60 years of age, cast or splint immobilisation for suspected scaphoid fracture negative on MRI or confirmed fifth metacarpal neck fracture, and routine follow‐up imaging for distal radius and ankles fractures. However, evidence was mostly based on studies of low methodological quality or high risk of bias. Conclusion: In this review, we identified clinical practices in orthopaedic injury care which are not supported by current evidence and whose use may be questioned. In future research, we should measure their frequency, assess practice variations and evaluate root causes to identify practices that could be targeted for de‐implementation.