CHAMGAP
VERIFIEDPassed the Codex final verification and publication gate. Evidence-verification cutoff: 2026-08-26. AI was used for research and drafting; the existence of all 1 cited sources was verified at the original page, followed by blind grading, adversarial audit, and build validation. Methodology v0.8.
Verdict No. 2921 · Search date 2026-08-26 · Methodology v0.8

Close contact casting,
does it really help with Equivalent 6-month function to surgery in older adults with unstable ankle fracture?

30-Second Summary
B
Evidence Grade B · 70 · Safety caution
Equivalent function came with fewer wound complications but more malunion
Casting reduced wound problems and additional procedures but increased malunion and later conversion after loss of reduction.
What the
research shows
The grade is B. AIM randomized 620 patients. Six-month OMAS, where higher scores mean better function, differed by -0.6 points for casting versus surgery (95% CI -3.9 to 2.6), wholly within the prespecified -6 to +6 equivalence limits.
What the
ads claim
Avoiding initial fixation means fewer incisions, implants, wound complications, and repeat operations; it does not mean avoiding anesthesia, and it trades against loss of reduction and malunion.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • Close contact casting uses minimal padding and close molding.
  • Both initial treatments used an operating room and general or spinal anesthesia.
  • The pivotal trial had public NIHR HTA funding.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2921 · B 70
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

Axis 6 B1 evidence ① Allocation concealment: "using a 24-hour telephone service at an independent organization (Aberdeen University). Concealment was ensured by registering participants before computer generation of the allocation." ② Blinding: "A blinded health professional performed outcome assessments at the primary end point (6 months)." Participant masking was inherently impossible for surgery versus casting, so under clause 105 this was not counted as a defect. Ankles were covered at six months and the James index was 0.8. ③ Analysis set and missingness: "The primary analysis was per protocol" as appropriate for equivalence, with a concordant ITT analysis; primary-endpoint missingness was 0% in PP and 0.2% in ITT. ④ Prespecified primary endpoint: "The primary end point was 6 months." Six-month OMAS and the ±6-point margin matched ISRCTN04180738 and the protocol.

Four gates: ① defect name: noninferiority/equivalence design; ② listed item: noninferiority design; ③ the paper prespecified ±6 points and both PP and ITT supported equivalence; ④ equivalence was avoidable for the surgery-versus-casting question, so one defect is counted. An unblinded subjective endpoint is not counted because participant masking was inherently impossible. Funding was: "funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment program (project 07/37/61)."

02

Why this is classified as B (70)

A large publicly funded single randomized trial met both sides of a prespecified functional-equivalence margin. One noninferiority/equivalence-design defect gives B with 70 points.

Counterpoint. Equivalent function does not mean equivalent alignment; malunion and later conversion were important disadvantages.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — The entire six-month OMAS confidence interval fell within the prespecified ±6-point equivalence limits in a publicly funded RCT

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointPPatient-reported treatment goal - the symptom is the goal
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI2Decisive evidence is publicly or non-profit funded
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (B).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Equivalent six-month functionBThe entire OMAS interval was within ±6 points.

Cross-check — AI research and Codex final gate

AI was used for research and drafting. Blind grading, adversarial audit, and the methodology boundary rules were then reapplied before Codex performed the final evidence, grade, copy, and build checks. If a grade cannot be narrowed, both evidence positions and their reasons are published.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 1Multicenter randomized equivalence trial593NIHR HTA programme (project 07/37/61); pilot funded by AO Research FoundationSix-month OMAS, higher is better, prespecified equivalence margin ±6 pointsCasting 64.5 vs surgery 66.0; difference -0.6 (95% CI -3.9 to 2.6), within both marginsPivotal publicly funded functional-equivalence evidence
§

Receipt — 1 References

All 1 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-26).

Willett K, Keene DJ, Mistry D, et al. Close Contact Casting vs Surgery for Initial Treatment of Unstable Ankle Fractures in Older Adults. JAMA. 2016;316(14):1455-1463. PMID: 27727383.
checked
Research and draft: AI used · Cross-check: blind grading and adversarial audit
Final verification and publication gate: Codex · Verification cutoff: 2026-08-26 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Benefit of Close Contact Casting × Equivalent 6-Month Function in Unstable Ankle Fractures in Older Adults Evidence Grade B card
[Chamgap] Benefit of Close Contact Casting × Equivalent 6-Month Function in Unstable Ankle Fractures in Older Adults — Evidence Grade B·70. 1 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/joint-bone/close-contact-casting-equivalent-function-older-unstable-ankle-fracture/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.