Surgical vs conservative interventions: Total of participants with adverse event outcomel
It is very uncertain whether surgical changes total of participants with adverse event outcomel compared with conservative interventions (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Surgical vs conservative interventions Total of participants with adverse event outcomel · adults with acute fracture of the middle third of the clavicle It is very uncertain whether surgical changes total of participants with adverse event outcomel compared with conservative interventions (very low certainty). Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating fractures of the middle third of the clavicle (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.34 [0.68, 2.64] | 14 studies · 1317 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating fractures of the middle third of the clavicle 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.