Outcome Reporting in Distal Radius Fracture Research: A Systematic Review Across Treatment Modalities

Area of Science:

• Orthopedics
• Evidence-Based Medicine
• Clinical Research Methodology

Background:

• Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are common adult fractures.
• Current outcome reporting in DRF studies is inconsistent, hindering evidence synthesis and standardized patient care.
• Variability exists in assessed domains, measurement tools, and follow-up timing.

Purpose of the Study:

• To systematically review outcome reporting practices in clinical studies of distal radius fracture management.
• To identify heterogeneity in outcome domains, measurement tools, and follow-up timing across different treatment categories.
• To support the development of a core outcome set and advanced monitoring approaches for DRF research.

Main Methods:

• Systematic review of 179 English-language clinical studies on DRF management (casting, surgery, physical therapy, pharmacotherapy, operative vs. nonoperative).
• Data extraction on study characteristics, outcome domains, measurement tools, and timing.
• Risk of bias assessment using RoB 2.0 for RCTs and MINORS for non-randomized studies.

Main Results:

• Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) like DASH/QuickDASH and PRWE were most frequent.
• Functional outcomes (grip strength, range of motion) were common, especially in therapy studies.
• Radiographic outcomes predominated in surgical and casting studies; 60% reported outcomes at ≥12 months with low risk of bias.

Conclusions:

• Outcome reporting in DRF management studies is fragmented, preventing meaningful comparisons and meta-analyses.
• A standardized core outcome set is needed to ensure consistent minimum reporting.
• Emerging methods like digital phenotyping can complement traditional measures for continuous, patient-centered monitoring.