Point-of-care ultrasound-guided versus standard reduction of displaced distal radius fractures in the emergency department:a randomised controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND: During closed reduction of displaced distal radius fractures, physical examination is used to determine the need for further manipulation before radiographic confirmation and cast application. Manipulation performed under ultrasound guidance has the potential to decrease the number of reduction attempts.METHODS: This multicentre randomised controlled trial was undertaken between December 2018 and July 2020 in the ED of four hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients aged ≥16 years presenting to the ED with a distal radius fracture requiring closed reduction were randomised to either point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS)-guided or standard reduction. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients requiring more than one reduction attempt. The secondary outcomes were time to complete reduction and treatment plan at ED discharge (conservative or operative repair).RESULTS: A total of 214 patients were screened, of which 211 patients were included for primary endpoint analysis (87% female, median age 68 years, 94% dorsal angulation, 59% intra-articular and 73% multifragmentary). In total, 105 patients were randomised to standard treatment and 106 patients to PoCUS-guided fracture reduction. In the standard treatment group, 13 patients (12%) required more than one reduction attempt, compared with 6 patients (6%) in the PoCUS group (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.86 to 6.45). The median reduction time was 5 min in the PoCUS group (IQR 3-6) vs 3 min (IQR 2-4) in the standard reduction group (p&lt;0.001). At ED discharge, operative repair was indicated for 17 (16%) patients in the standard group and 21 (20%) patients in the PoCUS group (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.58).CONCLUSION: This study could not demonstrate that PoCUS-guided reduction of distal radius fractures was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the number of reduction attempts.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR7934).</p

Point-of-care ultrasound-guided versus standard reduction of displaced distal radius fractures in the emergency department:a randomised controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND: During closed reduction of displaced distal radius fractures, physical examination is used to determine the need for further manipulation before radiographic confirmation and cast application. Manipulation performed under ultrasound guidance has the potential to decrease the number of reduction attempts.METHODS: This multicentre randomised controlled trial was undertaken between December 2018 and July 2020 in the ED of four hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients aged ≥16 years presenting to the ED with a distal radius fracture requiring closed reduction were randomised to either point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS)-guided or standard reduction. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients requiring more than one reduction attempt. The secondary outcomes were time to complete reduction and treatment plan at ED discharge (conservative or operative repair).RESULTS: A total of 214 patients were screened, of which 211 patients were included for primary endpoint analysis (87% female, median age 68 years, 94% dorsal angulation, 59% intra-articular and 73% multifragmentary). In total, 105 patients were randomised to standard treatment and 106 patients to PoCUS-guided fracture reduction. In the standard treatment group, 13 patients (12%) required more than one reduction attempt, compared with 6 patients (6%) in the PoCUS group (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.86 to 6.45). The median reduction time was 5 min in the PoCUS group (IQR 3-6) vs 3 min (IQR 2-4) in the standard reduction group (p&lt;0.001). At ED discharge, operative repair was indicated for 17 (16%) patients in the standard group and 21 (20%) patients in the PoCUS group (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.58).CONCLUSION: This study could not demonstrate that PoCUS-guided reduction of distal radius fractures was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the number of reduction attempts.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR7934).</p

Attempted Training of Alcohol Approach and Drinking Identity Associations in US Undergraduate Drinkers: Null Results from Two Studies

There is preliminary evidence that approach avoid training can shift implicit alcohol associations and improve treatment outcomes. We sought to replicate and extend those findings in US undergraduate social drinkers (Study 1) and at-risk drinkers (Study 2). Three adaptations of the approach avoid task (AAT) were tested. The first adaptation - the approach avoid training - was a replication and targeted implicit alcohol approach associations. The remaining two adaptations - the general identity and personalized identity trainings - targeted implicit drinking identity associations, which are robust predictors of hazardous drinking in US undergraduates. Study 1 included 300 undergraduate social drinkers. They were randomly assigned to real or sham training conditions for one of the three training adaptations, and completed two training sessions, spaced one week apart. Study 2 included 288 undergraduates at risk for alcohol use disorders. The same training procedures were used, but the two training sessions occurred within a single week. Results were not as expected. Across both studies, the approach avoid training yielded no evidence of training effects on implicit alcohol associations or alcohol outcomes. The general identity training also yielded no evidence of training effects on implicit alcohol associations or alcohol outcomes with one exception; individuals who completed real training demonstrated no changes in drinking refusal self-efficacy whereas individuals who completed sham training had reductions in self-efficacy. Finally, across both studies, the personalized identity training yielded no evidence of training effects on implicit alcohol associations or alcohol outcomes. Despite having relatively large samples and using a well-validated training task, study results indicated all three training adaptations were ineffective at this dose in US undergraduates. These findings are important because training studies are costly and labor-intensive. Future research may benefit from focusing on more severe populations, pairing training with other interventions, increasing training dose, and increasing gamification of training tasks