Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The most frequent type of fracture in Norway is the fracture of the distal radius, with an incidence of approximately 15,000 per year. Various treatment alternatives exist, but it remains uncertain which patients should be treated surgically, and which methods are best suited. As a result, there is a relatively large variation in practice in Norway. In this report, we have summarized the evidence on treatment and rehabilitation of distal radial fractures from the most recent available systematic reviews of high quality. Main findings are as follows:1. There is not enough evidence to decide which method of reduction is best. 2. There is some evidence to support the use of percutaneous pinning, however the best methods of percutaneous pinning are not established. 3. There is some evidence to support the use of external fixation compared to plaster cast. Though there is insufficient evidence to confirm a better functional outcome, external fixation reduces the incidence of redisplacement, gives better anatomical results, and most of the surgically related complications are minor. 4. There is insufficient evidence to determine the relative effects of the various methods of external fixation. 5. Bone scaffolding (bone transplantation or use of bone substitutes) may improve anatomical outcome compared with plaster cast alone, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude on functional outcome or complications. The same applies for other comparisons between different bone scaffolding methods. 6. There is some evidence that supports the use of rehabilitation interventions for patients with distal radius fractures. However, the evidence did not allow us to calculate the relative effect of different rehabilitation methods. The evidence base for the management of distal radius fracture is limited. Further research should therefore be preceeded by agreement on the priority questions for the management of these fractures, and to be addressed through large multi-centre trials.

Radius (Anatomy) --- Medical care --- Fractures --- Treatment.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

It is important to be aware of the legal and ethical frameworks within which research is undertaken and of the steps that are available to prevent fraudulent and dishonest research being undertaken and written up. This book, originally put together by Stephen Lock, an editor of the British Medical Journal, and now revised extensively by Michael Farthing, editor of the gastroenterology journal Gut, provides an overview of the entire topic. Background material on the regulatory frameworks, in North America as well as Europe, is laid out in detail, and the history of fraud and misconduct is illustrated admirably by contributions from Stephen Lock and Frank Wells, a co-editor and expert in ethical and legal issues relating to the pharmaceutical industry. A series of slightly less riveting accounts of individual country’s approaches to research fraud follows, with the best chapters coming towards the end, where personal experiences are used to illuminate the devastating effects that involvement in research fraud can have for patients and practitioners. Michael Farthing has contributed an excellent editorial view on research misconduct to conclude the book.

Medicine --- Physicians --- Médecine --- Médecins --- Research. --- Malpractice. --- Recherche --- Responsabilité professionnelle --- wetenschapsethiek (wetenschappelijk wangedrag, fraude) --- biomedisch, medisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek --- éthique de la science (inconduite scientifique) --- recherche biomédicale --- Médecine --- Médecins --- Responsabilité professionnelle