Factors affecting management of children’s low-risk distal radius fractures in the emergency department: a population-based retrospective cohort study
========================================================================================================================================================

* Tara Baxter
* Teresa To
* Maria Chiu
* Mark Camp
* Andrew Howard

## Abstract

**Background:** Ten randomized controlled trials over the last 2 decades support treating low-risk pediatric distal radius fractures with removable immobilization and without physician follow-up. We aimed to determine the proportion of these fractures being treated without physician follow-up and to determine whether different hospital and physician types are treating these injuries differently.

**Methods:** We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study using ICES data. We included children aged 2–14 years (2–12 yr for girls and 2–14 yr for boys) with distal radius fractures having had no reduction or operation within a 6-week period, and who received treatment in Ontario emergency departments from 2003 to 2015. Proportions of patients receiving orthopedic, primary care and no follow-up were determined. Multivariable log-binomial regression was used to quantify associations between hospital and physician type and management.

**Results:** We analyzed 70 801 fractures. A total of 20.8% (*n* = 14 742) fractures were treated without physician follow-up, with the proportion of physician follow-up consistent across all years of the study. Treatment in a small hospital emergency department (risk ratio [RR] 1.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.72–2.01), treatment by a pediatrician (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.11–1.34) or treatment by a subspecialty pediatric emergency medicine–trained physician (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.56–1.92) were most likely to result in no follow-up.

**Interpretation:** While small hospital emergency departments, pediatricians and pediatric emergency medicine specialists were most likely to manage low-risk distal radius fractures without follow-up, the majority of these fractures in Ontario were not managed according to the latest research evidence. Canadian guidelines are required to improve care of these fractures and to reduce the substantial overutilization of physician resources we observed.

Distal radius fractures are the most common pediatric orthopedic injury, with an estimated 10 000 fractures yearly in Ontario.1 Many of these fractures are minimally displaced (initial angulation < 15° in the sagittal plane and < 5 mm translation on the frontal plane), are at low risk for complications and yield excellent clinical results.2,3 One very common subtype of these fractures, buckle fractures, are stable injuries in which pediatric bone deforms without completely breaking.4 Historically these fractures have been seen for follow-up in hospital fracture clinics exclusively by orthopedic surgeons. However, a large body of evidence accumulated over the last 2 decades has shown that this is unnecessary and results in increased costs and more complications.5–15 Rather, these fractures can be treated more simply, with a single diagnostic radiograph, removable immobilization that is taken off at home and no physician follow-up, with equivalent outcomes. This simplified treatment is supported in multiple systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies and literature reviews.2–4,11–37 Many hospitals have also developed their own internal guidelines pertaining to this injury. One formal guideline advising on management of these injuries, Choosing Wisely UK, cites plaster casting and scheduled follow-up for distal radius buckle fractures in its list of treatments and procedures that are of little or no benefit to patients.38 We are unaware of any formal Canadian or American guidelines providing guidance on managing this fracture type.

Despite the evidence, large numbers of referrals to orthopedic surgeons have persisted for this fracture type.39–41 Application of best evidence is linked to hospital infrastructure and resources, physician education and training, and research affiliation, but these relations have not been well studied for these fractures.32,39–53 The aim of this study was to examine how low-risk pediatric distal radius fractures are being managed in Ontario, and to determine whether different hospital and physician types are making different choices regarding care.

## Methods

### Design and setting

We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study in Ontario involving children with low-risk pediatric distal radius fractures, using administrative data.

### Participants

We included all children aged 2–12 years for girls and 2–14 years for boys presenting to an Ontario emergency department with a closed fracture of the distal radius, identified in the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System database between Oct. 1, 2003, and Feb. 17, 2015. The upper age limit is the approximate age of skeletal maturity, which differs between sexes and after which low-risk-type fractures are no longer seen.1 The lower age limit corresponds to the age at which children are reliably walking, a requisite to have a fall onto outstretched hands with enough force to cause a fracture. It is rare to see a wrist fracture in a child who cannot yet walk, and such a fracture is concerning for nonaccidental injury, which has a remarkably different course of follow-up.

Patients were excluded if they had a discharge disposition other than “home,” if they did not reside in Ontario, if the fracture was manipulated or operated on within 6 weeks, if there were other fracture diagnoses within 6 months or if there were comorbidities necessitating increased fracture surveillance. These factors would preclude the ability to isolate care related to the fracture of interest. We also excluded patients with the following characteristics that would make determination of exposure or outcome status unreliable: no valid Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) number and admission to hospital for any reason during the 6-week observation period.

### Data sources

Data were obtained by linking multiple administrative databases housed at ICES (formerly the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences) in Toronto. Databases that were accessed and linked include the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System, OHIP, Registered Persons Database, ICES Physician Database, Ontario Health Care Institution Database, Census (Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care: Intelli-HEALTH ONTARIO), Canadian Institute for Health Information Discharge Abstract Database and Ontario Cancer Registry (Table 1; Appendix 1, available at [www.cmajopen.ca/content/9/2/E659/suppl/DC1](http://www.cmajopen.ca/content/9/2/E659/suppl/DC1)). Linkage across these databases proceeds using the ICES key number, which is an anonymized code that identifies individual patient records.

View this table:
[Table 1:](http://www.cmajopen.ca/content/9/2/E659/T1)

Table 1: 
ICES databases and data elements accessed

Reporting of National Ambulatory Care Reporting System data is mandatory for all Ontario emergency departments, with accuracy at the level of granularity required for this study reported at 88.8% and 93.5% for main problem and intervention coding, respectively.54 These percentages are likely higher for common injuries such as low-risk pediatric distal radius fractures. There are no data-quality studies regarding OHIP coding of fracture follow-up. Intuitively, OHIP coding represents a highly specific indication of patient interaction with a physician, given that nearly all Ontario physicians must submit billing codes to receive compensation. Even physicians functioning exclusively under salaried models are typically required to shadow bill. Only 4.2% of emergency department visits that appear in the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System database lack either a compatible OHIP claim submitted or explanation for the lack of claim (such as leaving without being seen).55 Of these visits with no submission to insurance, more than three-quarters were from facilities using alternative funding models.55

### Exposures

The primary exposure of interest was hospital type, obtained from the Ontario Health Care Institution Database, having 4 categories: pediatric hospital, academic hospital (nonpediatric Council of Academic Hospitals of Ontario members), small hospital (single community provider, annual weighted case load < 2700)56 and community hospital (other hospitals). These definitions were originally established by the Joint Policy and Planning Committee,56 with the addition of pediatric hospital type made by ICES.

The secondary exposure of interest was type of physician providing treatment in the emergency department, obtained from the ICES Physician Database, having 6 categories: emergency medicine residency training, general or family medicine with emergency medicine certification, family or general practitioner, pediatrician, subspecialty pediatric emergency medicine and orthopedic surgery.

Other covariates collected were year of service, patient age, patient sex, rural patient residence, patient deprivation quintile and physician year of medical graduation.

### Primary outcome

The primary outcome of interest was whether a follow-up visit occurred within 6 weeks of presentation, operationalized as a binary, yes/no, variable. A clinician visit was considered a follow-up for low-risk pediatric distal radius fracture only if both the OHIP billing code and associated diagnostic code were compatible with this.57 Where a compatible follow-up visit was identified, the type of follow-up provider was noted. Patients who had visits to a provider for reasons unrelated to the fracture met the definition of no follow-up.

### Statistical analysis

Baseline descriptive characteristics were calculated and reported for all variables of interest. The total proportion of children receiving no follow-up was calculated for each year of the study.

A multivariable log-binomial regression model was used to assess the association between hospital and physician type and no follow-up. The multivariable model was chosen a priori based on physician judgment of the potential clinical relevance of available covariates and consisted of the outcome variable; best-evidence treatment; variables of interest: hospital and physician type; and covariates: age, sex, deprivation quintile, rural residence and fiscal year. Collinearity of variables was assessed using the variance inflation factor with a threshold of greater than 2.5. Individuals with missing data were excluded, as this typically meant the entire visit record was blank.

Statistical analysis was conducted using SAS version 9.4.

### Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Hospital for Sick Children Research Ethics Board (#1000055743) and the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board (#34118).

## Results

A total of 78 252 eligible fractures were isolated. Of these, 508 fractures had an incompatible practitioner type providing care (e.g., psychiatry and pathology), and 6943 were missing data on relevant predictors. Where values were missing for 1 predictor, typically all predictor values were missing, and therefore these fractures were excluded. After exclusions, 70 801 fractures remained for analysis (Figure 1).

![Figure 1:](http://www.cmajopen.ca/https://www.cmajopen.ca/content/cmajo/9/2/E659/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1:](http://www.cmajopen.ca/content/9/2/E659/F1)

Figure 1: 
Exclusion flow diagram.

### Proportion with no follow-up

Table 2 shows the results of the descriptive analysis. Overall, 20.8% (*n* = 14 742) of patients with a low-risk pediatric distal radius fracture received no follow-up visit after their initial emergency department visit. The remaining 79.2% (*n* = 56 059) received follow-up with either an orthopedic surgeon (48 703/70 801, 68.8%) or a primary care practitioner (7356/70 801, 10.4%). This trend was consistent throughout all years of the study (Figure 2).

View this table:
[Table 2:](http://www.cmajopen.ca/content/9/2/E659/T2)

Table 2: 
Description of low-risk pediatric distal radius fracture cohort, stratified by outcome of interest, no follow-up

![Figure 2:](http://www.cmajopen.ca/https://www.cmajopen.ca/content/cmajo/9/2/E659/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2:](http://www.cmajopen.ca/content/9/2/E659/F2)

Figure 2: 
Yearly variation in type of follow-up visit for low-risk pediatric distal radius fractures.

### Multivariable log-binomial regression

Results of the multivariable analysis are shown in Table 3. No variables reached the threshold of greater than 2.5 for collinearity, and therefore all variables from the a priori model were included in the final model.

View this table:
[Table 3:](http://www.cmajopen.ca/content/9/2/E659/T3)

Table 3: 
Multivariable log-binomial regression analysis of factors predictive of receiving no follow-up after a low-risk pediatric distal radius fracture (*n* = 70 801)

#### Hospital type

Small hospital type had the largest positive association with no follow-up (risk ratio [RR] 1.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.72–2.01) when compared with teaching hospitals as a reference category. Pediatric hospital (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07–1.26) and community hospital (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06–1.20) types were also significant predictors of having no follow-up.

#### Physician type

The risk ratios for pediatric emergency medicine subspecialty training (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.56–1.92), pediatricians (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.11–1.34), family or general practitioners (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02–1.16), and orthopedic surgeons (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64–0.92) were significant when compared with emergency medicine residency training as a reference category. Family medicine plus emergency medicine certification was not a significant predictor (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94–1.06).

#### Other covariates

Rural patient residence showed a large significant association with no follow-up after adjustment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.38–1.50). Female patient sex had a small but significant association (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.05–1.11). One patient deprivation quintile reached significance (fourth quintile, RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01–1.10), with no trend shown among the quintiles. Patient age was not a significant predictor (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99–1.01).

## Interpretation

We have shown that while small hospital emergency departments, pediatricians and pediatric emergency medicine specialists were most likely to manage low-risk distal radius fractures without follow-up, most of these fractures in Ontario were not managed according to the latest research evidence. A substantial body of evidence exists to support simplified treatment for low-risk pediatric distal radius fractures, with most of the literature having been published since 2002. Until now, little was known about management patterns and contributing factors. Most surprising is the finding that follow-up care has not changed over time. With only 21% of patients receiving care in line with current research evidence, we are left to wonder where the disconnect exists between evidence generation and application for this injury. Hospital and physician type emerged as important determinants of treatment received; pediatric and small hospitals, and pediatric emergency medicine subspecialists were most associated with no follow-up.

Limited resources in the small hospital or rural settings may be an asset; emergency department physicians working in these settings may have developed excellent resource stewardship skills out of necessity. Furthermore, fracture clinics and orthopedic surgeons may not be as readily available, as they are in large or urban centres or may be located far from the patient’s residence. Another possible explanation for our results is that patients are pursuing the care they desire, regardless of follow-up recommendations.

The finding that pediatric hospitals and pediatric emergency medicine subspecialists were most associated with follow-up care in line with current best evidence is not surprising; Canadian research on best practices for low-risk pediatric distal radius fractures was largely conducted in pediatric hospitals through collaboration with pediatric emergency medicine subspecialists and research groups. Standardized treatment protocols may also exist in these emergency departments, with their rollout championed by the same groups.

As expected for a low-risk, nonoperative fracture, orthopedic surgeons were the primary treating provider in the emergency department for only 1.1% of these injuries and had the least association with no follow-up. This may represent a tendency for orthopedic surgeons to want to follow patients they have initially assessed and treated. More likely, however, is that this small number of fractures represent more severe fracture types that may have been miscoded in the administrative data or represent patients with high-risk comorbidities that were not captured or coded in the data.

Although splinting without physician follow-up for low-risk pediatric distal radius fractures is ideal, some patients may need reassurance while the fracture is healing and thus may require a follow-up appointment. A visit with a primary care practitioner is appropriate in this setting. Patients can be referred to an orthopedic surgeon if concerns arise that cannot be addressed in primary care. An orthopedic follow-up visit for distal radius fracture care costs the health system up to $151, whereas a follow-up with a family doctor costs $20–$33;57 therefore, the potential social and economic impact of this unnecessary care is large.11–13,18,58–60

We suggest a multimodal approach to encouraging adoption of best evidence for low-risk pediatric distal radius fractures. At the hospital level, emergency departments require access and funding for materials to provide removable forms of immobilization. Widespread development and implementation of clinical care guidelines, with enthusiastic support from champions of evidence-based care, could help guide decision-making in emergency departments. Fostering a cooperative atmosphere between specialties is imperative for timely and accurate diagnosis and to support emergency department physicians to apply guidelines confidently.

Interactive continuing medical education modules covering musculoskeletal topics are currently being explored as an innovative option at our institution. A “virtual fracture clinic” is one approach used in the United Kingdom; fracture diagnosis is confirmed virtually by an orthopedic surgeon, thereby providing decision support for emergency department physicians and alleviating medicolegal concerns. Ongoing communication and collaboration between orthopedic and emergency physicians are imperative when implementing hospital-based changes. The development of high-quality national guidelines may be of most benefit. Physician concerns regarding lost income resulting from eliminating follow-up or added workload from additional radiograph interpretations could be addressed with instituting bundled fees or salaried work.

For patients, additional information and support based on best-evidence guidelines may be beneficial in the form of Web-based and pamphlet education, printed discharge instructions, and phone applications offering specific fracture care information and virtual follow-up.

Future directions include a multicentre prospective cohort study, which would increase diagnostic accuracy, allow discrimination between subtypes of fractures, and include more detailed hospital, physician and patient factors than were available through ICES. Finally, costing analyses could quantify potential cost savings and inform a revision of funding models or fee schedules to better reflect and support the provision of best-evidence care.

### Limitations

While strengths of this study are the use of prospectively collected administrative data and large sample size, the study has some limitations. These include the use of data that were not intended for health research, unknown data accuracy for isolation of specific fracture types and follow-ups, inability to differentiate scheduled and unscheduled follow-up, lack of data regarding other relevant factors relating to best evidence care, such as method of immobilization and radiographs, and inability to explore behavioural aspects of care provision.

### Conclusion

Our results indicate a large gap between what is supported by evidence and what is practically done in the care of low-risk pediatric distal radius fracture. Only 21% of patients in this study received follow-up care consistent with current research evidence, with no substantial variation over time. Canadian guidelines are needed to improve care for this fracture type and provide evidence-based guidance to clinicians.

## Footnotes

*   **Competing interests:** Mark Camp is a consultant for 7D Surgical Inc., which has no relation to the present work. No other competing interests were declared.

*   This article has been peer reviewed.

*   **Contributors:** Tara Baxter refined the idea for this project to its current state, developed the research methodology in collaboration with the research team, performed the primary data analysis and was chiefly responsible for manuscript writing. Andrew Howard generated the initial idea for this project and played a substantial role in developing the research methodology and interpreting the data. Teresa To assisted in navigating the complex process of obtaining ICES data. She assisted in developing the ICES search methodology and definitions, statistical methodology, statistical analysis and interpretation of results. Mark Camp contributed substantially to the study design and interpretation of data. Maria Chiu contributed substantially to developing the research methodology and to the analysis and interpretation of data. All authors critically reviewed and revised all versions of the manuscript, gave final approval of the version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

*   **Funding:** This study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Ministry of Long-Term Care (MLTC). ICES is an independent, nonprofit research institute whose legal status under Ontario’s health information privacy law allows it to collect and analyze health care and demographic data, without consent, for health system evaluation and improvement.

*   **Data sharing:** All data are available through ICES with standard applications, permissions and affiliations required for data access.

*   **Disclaimer:** Parts of this material are based on data and/or information compiled and provided by ICES, Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) and Cancer Care Ontario (CCO). The opinions, results, views and conclusions reported in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of ICES, CIHI or CCO. No endorsement by these entities should be inferred.

*   **Supplemental information:** For reviewer comments and the original submission of this manuscript, please see [www.cmajopen.ca/content/9/2/E659/suppl/DC1](http://www.cmajopen.ca/content/9/2/E659/suppl/DC1).

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original publication is properly cited, the use is noncommercial (i.e., research or educational use), and no modifications or adaptations are made. See: [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## References

1.  Escott B (2012) Childhood fracture begets childhood fracture: a population-based study of longitudinal fracture patterns in Ontario children [master’s thesis] (University of Toronto, Toronto), p 71.
    
    

2.  Al-Ansari K, Howard A, Seeto B, et al. (2007) Minimally angulated pediatric wrist fractures: Is immobilization without manipulation enough? CJEM 9:9–15.
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17391594&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

3.  Boutis K, Willan A, Babyn P, et al. (2010) Cast versus splint in children with minimally angulated fractures of the distal radius: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ 182:1507–12.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY21haiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiMTgyLzE0LzE1MDciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMDoiL2NtYWpvLzkvMi9FNjU5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

4.  Morrissy RT, Weinstein SL (2006) Lovell and Winter’s pediatric orthopaedics (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia).
    
    

5.  Monroe KC, Sund SA, Nemeth BA, et al. (2014) Cast-saw injuries: assessing blade-to-skin contact during cast removal. Does experience or education matter? Phys Sportsmed 42:36–44.
    
    

6.  Ansari MZ, Swarup S, Ghani R, et al. (1998) Oscillating saw injuries during removal of plaster. Eur J Emerg Med 5:37–9.
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10406417&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

7.  Katz K, Fogelman R, Attias J, et al. (2001) Anxiety reaction in children during removal of their plaster cast with a saw. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:388–90.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1302/0301-620X.83B3.10487&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11341425&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

8.  Shore BJ, Hutchinson S, Harris M, et al. (2014) Epidemiology and prevention of cast saw injuries: results of a quality improvement program at a single institution. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:e31.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoiamJqc2FtIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6Ijk2LzQvZTMxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjA6Ii9jbWFqby85LzIvRTY1OS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

9.  Halanski M, Noonan KJ (2008) Cast and splint immobilization: complications. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16:30–40.
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18180390&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000251993000005&link_type=ISI) 

10. Bridges A (July 19, 2017) CBC News, ‘Inadequate and insulting’: Sask. family unhappy doctor not disciplined after boy burned during cast removal. Available: [www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/burns-cast-removal-saskatoon-saw-1.4211672](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/burns-cast-removal-saskatoon-saw-1.4211672). accessed 2017 July 22.
    
    

11. Davidson JS, Brown DJ, Barnes SN, et al. (2001) Simple treatment for torus fractures of the distal radius. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:1173–5.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1302/0301-620X.83B8.11451&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11764434&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

12. Do TT, Strub WM, Foad SL, et al. (2003) Reduction versus remodeling in pediatric distal forearm fractures: a preliminary cost analysis. J Pediatr Orthop B 12:109–15.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/00009957-200303000-00007&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12584495&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

13. Witney-Lagen C, Smith C, Walsh G (2013) Soft cast versus rigid cast for treatment of distal radius buckle fractures in children. Injury 44:508–13.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.injury.2012.11.018&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23265786&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

14. Jiang N, Cao ZH, Ma YF, et al. (2016) Management of pediatric forearm torus fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Emerg Care 32:773–8.
    
    

15. Hill CE, Masters JP, Perry DC (2016) A systematic review of alternative splinting versus complete plaster casts for the management of childhood buckle fractures of the wrist. J Pediatr Orthop B 25:183–90.
    
    

16. Bae DS, Howard AW (2012) Distal radius fractures: What is the evidence? J Pediatr Orthop 32(Suppl 2):S128–30.
    
    

17. Bennett DL, Mencio GA, Hernanz-Schulman M, et al. (2009) Buckle fractures in children: Is urgent treatment necessary? [published erratum in *J Fam Pract* 2010;59:13. J Fam Pract 58:E1–6.
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19679017&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000263419800001&link_type=ISI) 

18. Farbman KS, Vinci RJ, Cranley WR, et al. (1999) The role of serial radiographs in the management of pediatric torus fractures. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 153:923–5.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archpedi.153.9.923&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10482206&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000082377700003&link_type=ISI) 

19. van Bosse HJ, Patel RJ, Thacker M, et al. (2005) Minimalistic approach to treating wrist torus fractures. J Pediatr Orthop 25:495–500.
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15958903&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

20. Ben-Yakov M, Boutis K (2016) Buckle fractures of the distal radius in children. CMAJ 188:527.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY21haiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIxODgvNy81MjciO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMDoiL2NtYWpvLzkvMi9FNjU5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

21. Symons S, Rowsell M, Bhowal B, et al. (2001) Hospital versus home management of children with buckle fractures of the distal radius. A prospective, randomised trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:556–60.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1302/0301-620X.83B4.11211&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11380131&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

22. West S, Andrews J, Bebbington A, et al. (2005) Buckle fractures of the distal radius are safely treated in a soft bandage: a randomized prospective trial of bandage versus plaster cast. J Pediatr Orthop 25:322–5.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/01.bpo.0000152909.16045.38&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15832147&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000228789400014&link_type=ISI) 

23. Plint AC, Perry JJ, Correll R, et al. (2006) A randomized, controlled trial of removable splinting versus casting for wrist buckle fractures in children. Pediatrics 117:691–7.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6InBlZGlhdHJpY3MiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6OToiMTE3LzMvNjkxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjA6Ii9jbWFqby85LzIvRTY1OS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

24. Williams KG, Smith G, Luhmann SJ, et al. (2013) A randomized controlled trial of cast versus splint for distal radial buckle fracture: an evaluation of satisfaction, convenience, and preference. Pediatr Emerg Care 29:555–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/PEC.0b013e31828e56fb&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23603644&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

25. Kropman RH, Bemelman M, Segers MJ, et al. (2010) Treatment of impacted greenstick forearm fractures in children using bandage or cast therapy: a prospective randomized trial. J Trauma 68:425–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/TA.0b013e3181a0e70e&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19935115&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

26. Khan KS, Grufferty A, Gallagher O, et al. (2007) A randomized trial of ‘soft cast’ for distal radius buckle fractures in children. Acta Orthop Belg 73:594–7.
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18019914&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000254245000007&link_type=ISI) 

27. Vernooij CM, Vreeburg ME, Segers MJ, et al. (2012) Treatment of torus fractures in the forearm in children using bandage therapy. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 72:1093–7.
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22491633&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000302784600062&link_type=ISI) 

28. Mbubaegbu CE, Munshi NI, Currie L (1997) Audit of patient satisfaction with self-removable soft cast for greenstick fractures of the distal radius. J Clin Effect 2:14–5.
    
    

29. Solan MC, Rees R, Daly K (2002) Current management of torus fractures of the distal radius. Injury 33:503–5.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0020-1383(01)00198-X&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12098547&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000177753000008&link_type=ISI) 

30. Bochang C, Katz K, Weigl D, et al. (2008) Are frequent radiographs necessary in the management of closed forearm fractures in children? J Child Orthop 2:217–20.
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19308580&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

31. Plint AC, Perry JJ, Tsang JL (2004) Pediatric wrist buckle fractures. Should we just splint and go? CJEM 6:397–401.
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17378957&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

32. Koelink E, Schuh S, Howard A, et al. (2016) Primary care physician follow-up of distal radius buckle fractures. Pediatrics 137, doi:10.1542/peds.2015-2262.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6InBlZGlhdHJpY3MiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTU6IjEzNy8xL2UyMDE1MjI2MiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIwOiIvY21ham8vOS8yL0U2NTkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

33. Noonan KJ, Price CT (1998) Forearm and distal radius fractures in children. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 6:146–56.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5435/00124635-199805000-00002&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9689186&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

34. Abraham A, Handoll HH, Khan T (2008) Interventions for treating wrist fractures in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD004576.
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18425904&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

35. Firmin F, Crouch R (2009) Splinting versus casting of “torus” fractures to the distal radius in the paediatric patient presenting at the emergency department (ED): a literature review. Int Emerg Nurs 17:173–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ienj.2009.03.006&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19577205&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

36. Howes MC, Cutting P, Thomas M (2008) Best Evidence Topic report. Bet2. Splinting of buckle fractures of the distal radius in children. Emerg Med J 25:222–3.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiZW1lcm1lZCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiIyNS80LzIyMiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIwOiIvY21ham8vOS8yL0U2NTkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

37. May G, Grayson A (2009) Towards evidence-based emergency medicine: best BETs from the Manchester Royal Infirmary. Bet 3: Do buckle fractures of the paediatric wrist require follow up? Emerg Med J 26:819–22.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiZW1lcm1lZCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIyNi8xMS84MTkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMDoiL2NtYWpvLzkvMi9FNjU5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

38. (2016) Recommendations for clinicians 2016/18/2019: Royal College of Emergency Medicine (Choosing Wisely UK, London (UK)) Available: [www.choosingwisely.co.uk/i-am-a-clinician/recommendations/#1476654326462-140275b8-1d63](http://www.choosingwisely.co.uk/i-am-a-clinician/recommendations/#1476654326462-140275b8-1d63). accessed 2017 Apr 15.
    
    

39. Boutis K, Howard A, Constantine E, et al. (2014) Evidence into practice: emergency physician management of common pediatric fractures. Pediatr Emerg Care 30:462–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/PEC.0000000000000162&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24977995&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

40. Koelink E, Boutis K (2014) Paediatrician office follow-up of common minor fractures. Paediatr Child Health 19:407–12.
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25382996&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

41. Plint A, Clifford T, Perry J, et al. (2003) Wrist buckle fractures: a survey of current practice patterns and attitudes toward immobilization. CJEM 5:95–100.
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17475098&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

42. Boutis K, Howard A, Constantine E, et al. (2015) Evidence into practice: pediatric orthopaedic surgeon use of removable splints for common pediatric fractures. J Pediatr Orthop 35:18–23.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/BPO.0000000000000223&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24887079&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

43. Li P (2010) A population-based study on the association of standardized protocols in the emergency department for childhood asthma with outcomes in Ontario, CA [master’s thesis] (University of Toronto, Toronto), p 77.
    
    

44. Kinlin LM, Bahm A, Guttmann A, et al. (2013) A survey of emergency department resources and strategies employed in the treatment of pediatric gastroenteritis. Acad Emerg Med 20:361–6.
    
    

45. Swennen MH, van der Heijden GJ, Boeije HR, et al. (2013) Doctors’ perceptions and use of best-evidence medicine: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Acad Med 88:1384–96.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829ed3cc&link_type=DOI) 

46. Swennen MH, van der Heijden GJ, Blijham GH, et al. (2011) Career stage and work setting create different barriers for best-evidence medicine. J Eval Clin Pract 17:775–85.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01435.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20438602&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

47. Cummings GG, Estabrooks CA, Midodzi WK, et al. (2007) Influence of organizational characteristics and context on research utilization. Nurs Res 56(Suppl 4):S24–39.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/01.NNR.0000280629.63654.95&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17625471&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000248756700004&link_type=ISI) 

48. Stetler CB, Ritchie JA, Rycroft-Malone J, et al. (2009) Institutionalizing best-evidence practice: an organizational case study using a model of strategic change. Implement Sci 4:78.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1748-5908-4-78&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19948064&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

49. Marchionni C, Ritchie J (2008) Organizational factors that support the implementation of a nursing best practice guideline. J Nurs Manag 16:266–74.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1365-2834.2007.00775.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18324985&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

50. Hisham R, Liew SM, Ng CJ, et al. (2016) Rural doctors’ views on and experiences with best-evidence medicine: the FrEEDoM Qualitative Study. PLoS One 11:e0152649.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0152649&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

51. Hisham R, Ng CJ, Liew SM, et al. (2016) Why is there variation in the practice of best-evidence medicine in primary care? A qualitative study. BMJ Open 6:e010565.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiNi8zL2UwMTA1NjUiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMDoiL2NtYWpvLzkvMi9FNjU5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

52. Wallin L, Ewald U, Wikblad K, et al. (2006) Understanding work contextual factors: a short-cut to best-evidence practice? Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 3:153–64.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1741-6787.2006.00067.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17177929&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

53. Bernthal NM, Mitchell S, Bales JG, et al. (2015) Variation in practice habits in the treatment of pediatric distal radius fractures. J Pediatr Orthop B 24:400–7.
    
    

54. (2008) CIHI Data Quality Study of Ontario emergency department visits for fiscal year 2004–2005 — executive summary (Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa).
    
    

55. (2014) Matching NACRS ED visits with ICES-derived OHIP ER claims (ICES, Toronto) Available: [https://ssl.ices.on.ca/dataprog/Data%20Holdings/Health%20Services/nacrs-sds/DanaInfo=.aioulhjFpkn2K00Nrq,SSL+matching\_nacrsedvisits\_with\_ohip.htm](https://ssl.ices.on.ca/dataprog/Data%20Holdings/Health%20Services/nacrs-sds/DanaInfo=.aioulhjFpkn2K00Nrq,SSL+matching_nacrsedvisits_with_ohip.htm), Login required to access content. accessed 2015 July 15.
    
    

56. (2007) Hospital report 2007 emergency department care (Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa).
    
    

57. (2015) Schedule of benefits for physician services under the *Health Insurance Act* (October 30, 2015 [effective December 21, 2015]) (Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Toronto) Available: [www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/ohip/sob/physserv/physserv_mn.html](http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/ohip/sob/physserv/physserv_mn.html). accessed 2017 Dec 17.
    
    

58. Ryan LM, Teach SJ, Searcy K, et al. (2010) Epidemiology of pediatric forearm fractures in Washington, DC. J Trauma 69(Suppl 4):S200–5.
    
    [CrossRef](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/TA.0b013e3181f1e837&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20938308&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fcmajo%2F9%2F2%2FE659.atom) 

59. Crawford SN, Lee LS, Izuka BH (2012) Closed treatment of overriding distal radial fractures without reduction in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:246–52.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.cmajopen.ca/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoiamJqc2FtIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6Ijk0LzMvMjQ2IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjA6Ii9jbWFqby85LzIvRTY1OS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

60. Little KJ, Godfrey J, Cornwall R, et al. (2019) Increasing brace treatment for distal radius buckle fractures: using quality improvement methodology to implement evidence-based medicine. J Pediatr Orthop 39:e586–91.
    
    

*   © 2021 CMA Joule Inc. or its licensors