Gebuhr 1992.

Methods	Randomisation used random numbers generated from the 'Medstat' program Assessor blinding: not stated Intention‐to‐treat analysis: only for those followed up Loss to follow‐up: 7 (15%)
Participants	University hospitals, Denmark 46 participants. Of 39 analysed: 19 male (49%), median age 44 years, range 12‐85 years. Transverse, oblique and comminuted fractures included. Inclusion criteria: closed midshaft or distal isolated ulnar fracture. Exclusion criteria: proximal ulnar fracture, Monteggia fracture dislocations
Interventions	Interventions started after initial immobilisation in an above elbow cast aimed to relieve pain and allow swelling to subside. Interventions removed when healed. 1. Short arm pre‐fabricated functional brace 2. Long arm plaster cast Allocated: 23/23 Assessed: 20/19
Outcomes	Length of follow‐up: maximum 20 weeks Fracture union (radiographic and pain free) Patient evaluation: satisfaction, pain Range of motion (wrist, elbow, forearm: elbow extension/flexion, forearm pronation/supination and wrist extension/flexion) Anatomic: varus and volar/dorsal angulation Return to previous employment, use of device at work
Notes	Letter from Gebuhr gave details of the method of randomisation.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation "used random numbers generated from the 'Medstat' program".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No confirmation of this: "allocated randomly".
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Patient‐rated outcomes	High risk	There was no report of blinding.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Clinician‐rated outcomes	Unclear risk	There was no report of blinding.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Patient‐rated outcomes	Low risk	Moderate loss to follow‐up: 7/46 (15%). Six participants failed to attend follow‐up examinations but this is unlikely to affect results.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Clinician‐rated outcomes	Unclear risk	Moderate loss to follow‐up: 7/46 (15%). Treatment group of person with putative non‐union who had operation not known.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Reports on typical set of outcomes for these fractures.
Selection bias (baseline imbalances)?	Unclear risk	Brace group were younger (mean age 42 versus 48 years) but otherwise characteristics of the participants included in the analyses of the two groups seemed comparable. However, data for 7 participants are missing.
Performance bias (care programme discrepancies)?	Unclear risk	Insufficient information ‐ initial treatment was the same and subsequent advice on activity seemed similar too.