Study designs of evaluations included in the review
The authors stated that they were seeking the 'best available evidence', but did not specify any inclusion criteria pertaining to the study design. The studies reported in the review were all small case series. The duration of follow-up ranged from 17.8 to 46 months.
Specific interventions included in the review
Studies of patients receiving ORIF or arthroplasty were eligible for inclusion.
Participants included in the review
Studies of elderly patients were eligible for inclusion. The authors did not define what they consider to be 'elderly', and it appears that not all of the patients in the included studies could be classified as elderly (the mean age in one study was 45 years).
Outcomes assessed in the review
The authors did not state any inclusion criteria relating to the outcomes. The outcomes reported in the included studies were: range of motion, nonunion or malunion, number of reoperations, infection and function/symptom/quality of life scores (Mayo score, Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score, SF-36).
How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made?
The authors did not state how the papers were selected for the review, or how many reviewers performed the selection.