Summary of findings 3. Summary of findings table 3: comparison of operation types: firebreak skin grafting vs z‐plasty closure of fasciectomy for Dupuytren's disease.

Comparison of operation types: firebreak skin grafting vs z‐plasty closure of fasciectomy for Dupuytren's disease
Patient or population: 79 participants (Ullah 2009) Settings: single‐centre UK study Intervention: firebreak skin grafting to close incision Comparison: z‐plasty closure of incision
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)		Number of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	z‐plasty	Firebreak skin grafting
PEM hand function score at 3 years Major outcome group 1 (hand function) (scores between 0 and 77, where 0 represents no impairment in hand function and 77 represents maximum impairment in hand function)	See comment	See comment	79 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa	Data represented graphically only; differences between groups described as not statistically significant; no P value provided
Major outcome group 2 (patient satisfaction and other PROM)	See comment	See comment	See comment	See comment	Not studied in Ullah 2009
Correction of MCPJ and PIPJ deformities at 2 weeks Major outcome group 3 (early angular outcomes)	All MCPJs fully corrected Mean PIPJ correction 6 degrees in the z‐plasty group	All MCPJs also fully corrected Mean PIPJ correction no different (also 6 degrees) in the skin graft group from the z‐plasty group	79 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowb
Progressive contracture by 3 years Major outcome group 4 (recurrence)	109 per 1000	136 per 1000	79 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowc	P value = 0.17 in Ullah 2009 Rates assessed per finger (90 fingers treated among 79 participants)
Hypoaesthesia Major outcome group 5 (adverse effects)	Radial digital nerve territory: 217 per 1000 Ulnar digital nerve territory: 217 per 1000	Radial digital nerve territory: 341 per 1000 Ulnar digital nerve territory: 455 per 1000	79 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowd	P value = 0.2 for radial digital nerve territory in Ullah 2009 P value = 0.03 for ulnar digital nerve territory in Ullah 2009
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; MCPJ: Metacarpophalangeal joint; PEM: Patient Evaluation Measure; PIPJ: Proximal interphalangeal joint; PROM: Patient‐reported outcome measure; RR: Risk ratio.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

^aQuality of evidence for PEM hand function score at 3 years downgraded from high to low, as neither data nor P value was provided to support statement, and as the result of imprecision.

^b,c,dQuality of evidence downgraded from high to low because of risks of bias and imprecision.