Skip to main content
. 2009 Apr 2;130(2):241–249. doi: 10.1007/s00402-009-0866-0

Table 10.

Functional treatment versus plaster immobilisation

Outcome Studies Participants Statistical method Effect estimate
2.1 Percentage of patients with normal extension at 1 year 1 50 Risk ratio (M-H, fixed, 95% CI) 1.19 [0.97, 1.46]
2.2 Percentage of patients with normal extension at 3 months 1 50 Risk ratio (M-H, fixed, 95% CI) 1.78 [1.23, 2.57]
2.3 Percentage of patients with normal flexion at 1 year 1 50 Risk ratio (M-H, fixed, 95% CI) 1.19 [0.97, 1.46]
2.4 Percentage of patients with normal flexion at 3 months 1 50 Risk ratio (M-H, fixed, 95% CI) 1.25 [0.99, 1.56]
2.5 Percentage of patients with normal pro- and supination at 1 year 1 50 Risk ratio (M-H, fixed, 95% CI) 1.25 [0.99, 1.56]
2.6 Percentage patients with excellent or good results at >2 years 2 74 Risk ratio (M-H, fixed, 95% CI) 1.76 [1.19, 2.60]
2.7 Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) 1 42 Mean difference (IV, fixed, 95% CI) 12.70 [3.66, 21.74]
2.8 Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) 1 42 Mean difference (IV, fixed, 95% CI) −10.10 [−17.58, −2.62]
2.9 Weeks off work 1 42 Mean difference (IV, fixed, 95% CI) −3.40 [−4.78, −2.02]
2.10 Physiotherapy time (weeks) 1 44 Mean difference (IV, fixed, 95% CI) −4.00 [−5.78, −2.22]
2.11 Period disability (weeks) 1 44 Mean difference (IV, fixed, 95% CI) −8.00 [−11.71, −4.29]
2.12 After-treatment time (months) 1 44 Mean difference (IV, fixed, 95% CI) −2.00 [−3.78, −0.22]

M-H Mantel-Haenszel statistical method; CI confidence interval; IV inverse variance