Table V.
Effect estimates of all pair-wise comparisons for distal clavicle fractures
| Outcome | Comparison | MD or RR [95% CrI] |
|---|---|---|
| Function score (0-100) at 3 mo | CCSc-LP vs. CCSu | MD, −17.08 [−40.91 to 6.50] |
| CCSc-LP vs. CCSu-LP | MD, −10.00 [−23.05 to 2.90] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. HP | MD, −12.03 [−31.93 to 8.05] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. LP | MD, −9.33 [−27.77 to 9.04] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. TB-KW | MD, −5.60 [−19.25 to 8.05] | |
| CCSu vs. CCSu-LP | MD, 7.04 [−16.60 to 30.85] | |
| CCSu vs. HP | MD, 5.11 [−7.67 to 17.91] | |
| CCSu vs. LP | MD, 7.71 [−19.13 to 34.49] | |
| CCSu vs. TB-KW | MD, 11.50 [−7.82 to 30.75] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. HP | MD, −1.99 [−21.90 to 17.80] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. LP | MD, 0.66 [−12.30 to 13.56] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. TB-KW | MD, 4.39 [−9.25 to 18.02] | |
| HP vs. LP | MD, 2.65 [−20.93 to 26.38] | |
| HP vs. TB-KW | MD, 6.40 [−8.04 to 20.75] | |
| LP vs. TB-KW | MD, 3.72 [−15.07 to 22.30] | |
| Function score (0-100) at 6 mo | CCSc-LP vs. CCSu | MD, −8.14 [−22.79 to 6.63] |
| CCSc-LP vs. CCSu-LP | MD, −3.69 [−11.43 to 4.07] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. HP | MD, −4.51 [−17.27 to 8.09] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. TB-KW | MD, 1.01 [−7.95 to 9.91] | |
| CCSu vs. CCSu-LP | MD, 4.48 [−10.29 to 19.00] | |
| CCSu vs. HP | MD, 3.70 [−3.77 to 11.19] | |
| CCSu vs. TB-KW | MD, 9.15 [−2.42 to 20.70] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. HP | MD, −0.76 [−13.46 to 11.85] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. TB-KW | MD, 4.69 [−4.25 to 13.70] | |
| HP vs. TB-KW | MD, 5.47 [−3.49 to 14.36] | |
| Function score (0-100) at ≥1 yr | CCSc-LP vs. CCSu | MD, −3.09 [−12.00 to 5.57] |
| CCSc-LP vs. CCSu-KW | MD, 2.13 [−10.47 to 14.45] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. CCSu-LP | MD, −4.42 [−11.57 to 2.44] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. HP | MD, 0.15 [−7.83 to 8.09] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. KW | MD, 6.91 [−2.65 to 16.58] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. LP | MD, −4.92 [−13.41 to 3.41] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. TB-KW | MD, 1.45 [−6.13 to 8.70] | |
| CCSu vs. CCSu-KW | MD, 5.22 [−5.83 to 16.34] | |
| CCSu vs. CCSu-LP | MD, −1.37 [−8.69 to 6.01] | |
| CCSu vs. HP | MD, 3.22 [−0.55 to 7.20] | |
| CCSu vs. KW∗ | MD, 9.98 [2.86 to 17.52] | |
| CCSu vs. LP | MD, −1.78 [−8.35 to 4.68] | |
| CCSu vs. TB-KW | MD, 4.52 [−1.05 to 10.10] | |
| CCSu-KW vs. CCSu-LP | MD, −6.61 [−17.63 to 4.25] | |
| CCSu-KW vs. HP | MD, −1.99 [−12.37 to 8.52] | |
| CCSu-KW vs. KW | MD, 4.75 [−7.10 to 17.00] | |
| CCSu-KW vs. LP | MD, −7.03 [−16.11 to 1.90] | |
| CCSu-KW vs. TB-KW | MD, −0.72 [−11.64 to 10.23] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. HP | MD, 4.60 [−1.51 to 10.83] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. KW∗ | MD, 11.36 [3.11 to 19.84] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. LP | MD, −0.44 [−6.61 to 5.65] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. TB-KW | MD, 5.89 [−0.19 to 11.97] | |
| HP vs. KW∗ | MD, 6.74 [0.58 to 13.06] | |
| HP vs. LP | MD, −5.04 [−10.41 to 0.13] | |
| HP vs. TB-KW | MD, 1.32 [−2.84 to 5.14] | |
| KW vs. LP∗ | MD, −11.80 [−20.02 to −3.95] | |
| KW vs. TB-KW | MD, −5.45 [−12.11 to 0.95] | |
| LP vs. TB-KW∗ | MD, 6.36 [0.26 to 12.49] | |
| Time to radiographic union, wk | CCSc-LP vs. CCSu | MD, −7.57 [−27.81 to 12.10] |
| CCSc-LP vs. CCSu-LP | MD, 3.37 [−8.06 to 14.90] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. HP | MD, −3.75 [−20.40 to 12.78] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. KW | MD, −3.94 [−20.40 to 12.48] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. LP | MD, −4.53 [−24.85 to 12.72] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. TB-KW | MD, −3.34 [−15.76 to 9.03] | |
| CCSu vs. CCSu-LP | MD, 10.93 [−8.75 to 31.22] | |
| CCSu vs. HP | MD, 3.82 [−7.16 to 14.76] | |
| CCSu vs. KW | MD, 3.61 [−15.39 to 22.86] | |
| CCSu vs. LP | MD, 3.27 [−12.59 to 15.56] | |
| CCSu vs. TB-KW | MD, 4.26 [−11.30 to 19.90] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. HP | MD, −7.09 [−23.77 to 9.37] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. KW | MD, −7.28 [−23.67 to 9.13] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. LP | MD, −7.86 [−28.23 to 9.75] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. TB-KW | MD, −6.67 [−18.90 to 5.60] | |
| HP vs. KW | MD, −0.16 [−15.58 to 15.25] | |
| HP vs. LP | MD, −0.52 [−11.23 to 6.73] | |
| HP vs. TB-KW | MD, 0.45 [−10.65 to 11.36] | |
| KW vs. LP | MD, −0.36 [−19.96 to 15.57] | |
| KW vs. TB-KW | MD, 0.61 [−10.44 to 11.35] | |
| LP vs. TB-KW | MD, 1.00 [−11.49 to 16.90] | |
| Hardware complications | CCSu vs. CCSu-LP | RR, 1.43 [0.00 to 523] |
| CCSu vs. HP | RR, 2.03 [0.02 to 217] | |
| CCSu vs. KW | RR, 0.10 [0.00 to 24] | |
| CCSu vs. LP | RR, 1.45 [0.00 to 545] | |
| CCSu vs. TB-KW | RR, 0.73 [0.00 to 145] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. HP | RR, 1.40 [0.04 to 59] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. KW | RR, 0.07 [0.00 to 7.77] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. LP | RR, 1.03 [0.03 to 39] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. TB-KW | RR, 0.50 [0.01 to 43] | |
| HP vs. KW∗ | RR, 0.05 [0.00 to 0.93] | |
| HP vs. LP | RR, 0.72 [0.02 to 29] | |
| HP vs. TB-KW | RR, 0.35 [0.05 to 3.71] | |
| KW vs. LP | RR, 14 [0.13 to 1510] | |
| KW vs. TB-KW | RR, 6.69 [0.48 to 179] | |
| LP vs. TB-KW | RR, 0.49 [0.01 to 41] | |
| Nonunion | CCSc-LP vs. CCSu | RR, 0.76 [0.01 to 68] |
| CCSu-LP vs. CCSc-LP∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.97] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. HP | RR, 2.05 [0.03 to 156] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. KW | RR, 4.06 [0.03 to 608] | |
| LP vs. CCSc-LP∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.51] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. TB-KW | RR, 0.84 [0.02 to 44] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. CCSu∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.90] | |
| CCSu vs. HP | RR, 2.66 [0.64 to 15] | |
| CCSu vs. KW | RR, 5.26 [0.35 to 120] | |
| LP vs. CCSu∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.14] | |
| CCSu vs. TB-KW | RR, 1.12 [0.10 to 15] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. HP | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 2.32] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. KW | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 6.23] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. LP | RR, 6.36 [0.00 to 2.29 × 1020] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. TB-KW∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.77] | |
| HP vs. KW | RR, 1.95 [0.19 to 26] | |
| LP vs. HP∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.09] | |
| HP vs. TB-KW | RR, 0.42 [0.06 to 10] | |
| LP vs. KW∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.93] | |
| KW vs. TB-KW | RR, 0.21 [0.01 to 4.48] | |
| LP vs. TB-KW∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.19] | |
| Refracture | CCSu vs. CCSu-LP | RR, 2.44 [0.08 to 144] |
| CCSu vs. HP | RR, 0.76 [0.13 to 4.10] | |
| KW vs. CCSu∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.85] | |
| LP vs. CCSu∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.52] | |
| TB-KW vs. CCSu∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.00] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. HP | RR, 0.32 [0.01 to 5.53] | |
| KW vs. CCSu-LP | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 4.26] | |
| LP vs. CCSu-LP | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 1.82] | |
| TB-KW vs. CCSu-LP∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.00] | |
| KW vs. HP∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.57] | |
| LP vs. HP∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.34] | |
| TB-KW vs. HP∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.00] | |
| LP vs. KW | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 9.55 × 109] | |
| TB-KW vs. KW∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.38] | |
| TB-KW vs. LP | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 1.07 × 1015] | |
| Revision | CCSu vs. CCSc-LP | RR, 0.07 [0.00 to 40] |
| CCSu-LP vs. CCSc-LP∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.01] | |
| HP vs. CCSc-LP | RR, 0.08 [0.00 to 25] | |
| KW vs. CCSc-LP | RR, 0.11 [0.00 to 116] | |
| TB-KW vs. CCSc-LP | RR, 0.31 [0.01 to 13] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. CCSu∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.45] | |
| CCSu vs. HP | RR, 0.85 [0.04 to 14] | |
| CCSu vs. KW | RR, 0.64 [0.00 to 91] | |
| CCSu vs. TB-KW | RR, 0.23 [0.00 to 38] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. HP∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.28] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. KW∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.28] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. TB-KW∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.05] | |
| HP vs. KW | RR, 0.76 [0.01 to 45] | |
| HP vs. TB-KW | RR, 0.28 [0.00 to 21] | |
| KW vs. TB-KW | RR, 0.36 [0.00 to 130] | |
| Symptoms | CCSc-LP vs. CCSu∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.18] |
| CCSu-LP vs. CCSc-LP∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.01] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. HP | RR, 4.26 [0.12 to 198] | |
| CCSc-LP vs. TB-KW | RR, 1.80 [0.10 to 39] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. CCSu∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.00] | |
| HP vs. CCSu∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.03] | |
| TB-KW vs. CCSu∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.08] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. HP∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.07] | |
| CCSu-LP vs. TB-KW∗ | RR, 0.00 [0.00 to 0.03] | |
| HP vs. TB-KW | RR, 0.42 [0.05 to 3.32] |
MD, mean difference; RR, risk ratio; CrI, credible interval; CCSc, coracoclavicular screw fixation; LP, locking plate; CCSu, coracoclavicular suturing; HP, hook plate; TB, tension band; KW, K-wires.
∗
Statistically significant.