Purpose Distal radius fractures will be the most treated fracture and their administration continues to be organic commonly. and various research characteristics including test size geographic origins of the analysis clinical setting research design kind of treatment evaluation for statistical significance evaluation of wrist function existence of subjective result procedures mean follow-up period adequacy of decrease complications mean individual age and the current GDC-0449 (Vismodegib) presence of any extramural financing. Results We evaluated 215 journal content and discovered that 70% of content reported positive final results 25 reported natural final results and 5% reported harmful outcomes. Funnel story evaluation suggested the current presence of publication bias because of the asymmetric distribution of research. Furthermore we discovered statistically significant distinctions between research final results with respects to treatment type existence of external financing reduction adequacy hands/wrist functional assessment and patient questionnaires for subjective assessment. Conclusions Publication bias likely exists in the literature for distal radius fracture management. Several study characteristics influence the reporting of positive outcomes but whether or not the presence of these characteristics portends a greater chance of publication remains unclear. A standardized approach to measure and GDC-0449 (Vismodegib) IL-23A track results may improve evidence-based outcomes. Keywords: Distal radius Fracture Publication bias Treatment Wrist INTRODUCTION Distal radius fractures are the most common fracture treated by physicians  and have a substantial impact on health care. The annual incidence in GDC-0449 (Vismodegib) the United States is more than 640 0 cases among all ages. Management of distal radius fractures remains difficult and is complicated by varying fracture patterns various treatment options and the complex relationship between reduction and functional outcome.  Treatment selection relies on GDC-0449 (Vismodegib) evidence-based literature which depends on the availability of unbiased and objective data from published studies. Publication bias refers to the tendency of researchers peer reviewers and journal editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of GDC-0449 (Vismodegib) study findings.  In other words publication of studies reporting statistically significant or positive findings is more likely than publication of those without.  The validity of literature and foundation for evidence-based practice may be compromised by publication bias because scientific publications are the source for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.  A serious potential consequence of publication bias is that it may overestimate treatment effects in published work that could lead to inappropriate or unjustified treatment methods.  Publication bias has been recognized and described in the internal medicine literature; however despite its potentially detrimental clinical impact the prevalence of publication bias remains largely unexplored in surgery particularly in hand surgery. Determining the presence of publication bias in the distal radius facture literature and investigating factors that lead to unbalanced reporting may improve patient care and reduce unjustified treatments. The purpose of this study was to conduct a critical review of all available literature on the treatment of distal radius fractures to evaluate the presence of publication bias. We hypothesized that studies with positive (statistically significant) findings were published in greater numbers in comparison to those with either negative or neutral findings (nonsignificant findings) and that the reporting of positive outcomes was influenced by specific study variables. METHODS A systematic literature review was performed using MEDLINE SCOPUS and EMBASE databases to find primary articles reporting on treatments and outcomes of distal radius fractures (Figure 1). The search was performed using the key words distal radius fracture treatment and reduction. Database limits were used to exclude non-human pediatric and non-English studies. After deleting duplicate studies articles and abstracts were then screened to exclude technique papers studies with concomitant fractures (with.