Table 1.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Figure 1.
The study selection and inclusion process.
Figure 2.
Methodological quality of the included studies.
This risk of bias tool incorporates the assessment of randomization (sequence generation and allocation concealment), blinding (participants, personnel and outcome assessors), completeness of the outcome data, selection of the outcomes reported and other sources of bias. The items were scored with ‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘unsure’.
Figure 3.
Each risk of bias item is presented as the percentage across all the included studies, which indicates the proportion of different levels of risk of bias for each item.
Table 2.
Characteristics of the included studies.
Figure 4.
Forest plot for the risk ratio (RR) estimate for fracture union.
RR = −0.96 (95% CI, 0.90–1.02).
Figure 5.
Forest plot for the weighted mean difference (WMD) estimate for ASES score.
WMD = −1.84 (95% CI, −3.91–0.22).
Figure 6.
Forest plot for the risk ratio (RR) estimate for iatrogenic redial nerve injury.
RR = 0.72 (95% CI, 0.35–1.47).
Figure 7.
Forest plot for the risk ratio (RR) estimate for the rate of intraoperative fracture comminution.
RR = 3.14 (95% CI, 1.02–9.64).
Figure 8.
Forest plot for the risk ratio (RR) estimate for infection.
RR = 0.48 (95% CI, 0.19–1.24).
Figure 9.
Forest plot for the risk ratio (RR) estimate for shoulder impingement.
RR = 7.32 (95% CI, 2.64–20.29).
Figure 10.
Forest plot for the risk ratio (RR) estimate for the incidence of restriction of shoulder range of movement.
RR = 9.27 (95% CI, 2.22–38.72).
Figure 11.
Forest plot for the risk ratio (RR) estimate for the incidence of implant failure.
RR = 3.23 (95% CI, 1.15–9.06).
Figure 12.
Forest plot for the risk ratio (RR) estimate for the incidence of re-operation.
RR = 2.21 (95% CI, 1.28–3.81).
Table 3.
The GRADE evidence quality for each outcome.