Filter results

Mallet Fracture clinical trials

Phase 1: Researchers test a new drug or treatment in a small group of people for the first time to evaluate its safety, determine a safe dosage range, and identify side effects.
Phase 2: The drug or treatment is given to a larger group of people to see if it is effective and to further evaluate its safety.
Phase 3: The drug or treatment is given to large groups of people to confirm its effectiveness, monitor side effects, compare it to commonly used treatments, and collect information that will allow the drug or treatment to be used safely.
Phase 4: Studies are done after the drug or treatment has been marketed to gather information on the drug's effect in various populations and any side effects associated with long-term use.

View clinical trials related to Mallet Fracture.

Filter by:

Completed
Page 1

NCT ID: NCT01583556 Completed - Clinical trials for Distal Radius Fracture

Optional Follow-up Visits for Common, Low-risk Arm Fractures

Start date: July 2012
Phase: N/A
Study type: Observational

Many common arm fractures have an excellent prognosis with little more than symptomatic treatment. When studying these fractures, investigators find that a substantial number of patients do not attend follow-up appointments. The difficulty of maneuvering in big cities, the cost of parking, the co-pay for the visit and the wait times for x-ray and doctor are all inconveniences that some patients might prefer to avoid. Building on prior research, it is appropriate to offer patients with common minor upper extremity fractures that have an excellent prognosis optional follow-up after the first visit. The plan would be to be available by phone, email and subsequent appointment at the patient's discretion if they felt that the recovery was off course. Benefit to individual participants is unlikely. The study will benefit the society as a whole, by providing a better understanding of these common fractures. It can also affect the economics of our health system by avoiding further follow-up appointments. Primary null hypothesis: There is no difference in patient outcome 2-6 months after injury between patients that return for a second visit, and patients that do not. Secondary null hypothesis: There is no difference in patient satisfaction 2-6 months after injury between patients that return for a second visit, and patients that do not.