4.3 Review

Vitamin C to Prevent Complex Regional Pain Syndrome in Patients With Distal Radius Fractures: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA
卷 29, 期 8, 页码 E235-E241

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000305

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine whether vitamin C is effective in preventing complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in patients with distal radius fractures. Data Sources: MEDLINE (1946 to present), EMBASE (1974 to present), and The Cochrane Library (no date limit) were systematically searched up to September 6, 2014, using MeSH and EMTREE headings with free text combinations. Study Selection: Randomized trials comparing vitamin C against placebo were included. No exclusions were made during the selection of eligible trials on the basis of patient age, sex, fracture severity, or fracture treatment. Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and applied the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Data Synthesis: Heterogeneity was quantified using the chi(2) test and the I-2 statistic. Outcome data were combined with a random effects model. Results: Across 3 trials (n = 890) of patients with distal radius fractures, vitamin C did not reduce the risk for CRPS (risk ratio = 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-1.13; I-2 = 70%). This result was confirmed in sensitivity analyses to test the importance of missing data because of losses to follow-up under varying assumptions. Heterogeneity was explained by diagnostic criteria, but not regimen of vitamin C or fracture treatment. Conclusions: The evidence for vitamin C to prevent CRPS in patients with distal radius fractures fails to demonstrate a significant benefit. The overall quality of the evidence is low, and these results should be interpreted in the context of clinical expertise and patient preferences.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据