Pin vs plate fixation for metacarpal fractures: a meta-analysis

Table 2 Quality of evidence according to the GRADE criteria

Outcomes	Number of studies (design); no. of participants	Effect size (95% CI)	Characteristics of the included studies
Outcomes	Number of studies (design); no. of participants	Effect size (95% CI)	Risk of bias^a	Inconsistency	Indirectness^b	Imprecision^c	Publication bias	Overall GRADE quality score
Disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand score (DASH)	6 (5 observational; 1 RCT); n = 329	WMD − 0.77 (− 3.55, 2.00)	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Not serious	Undetected	⨁⨁◯◯ Low
Range of movement (ROM) at the meta-carpo-phalangeal joint	7 (6 observational; 1 RCT); n = 359	WMD 4.44 (− 4.19, 13.07)	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Not serious	Undetected	⨁⨁◯◯ Low
Grip strength	4 (4 observational); n = 205	WMD − 4.63 (− 14.52, 5.26)	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Serious^c	Undetected	⨁◯◯◯ Very low
Limb shortening (in mm) on radiography	4 (4 observational); n = 219	WMD 1.25 (0.03, 2.47)	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Serious ^c	Undetected	⨁◯◯◯ Very low
Visual analogue score (VAS)	2 (2 observational); n = 107	WMD − 0.01 (− 0.27, 0.26)	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Serious^c	Undetected	⨁◯◯◯ Very low
Complication rates	8 (7 observational; 1 RCT); n = 439	RR 0.93 (0.57, 1.53)	Serious	Not serious	Serious	Not serious	Undetected	⨁⨁◯◯ Low

^aMajority of the studies included were observational in design
^bStudies were done in different geographic settings. Further, studies differed in the age of the participants and the duration of follow-up post-operatively
^cCriteria for optimal information size (OIS) not met and the 95% CI overlap no effect and includes important benefit and harm

ISSN: 1749-799X