Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16437422›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006

Extramedullary fixation implants and external fixators for extracapsular hip fractures in adults.

M J Parker, H H G Handoll

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Conservative versus operative treatment for hip fractures in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008
    Pooled it
  4. Influence of osteoporosis on fracture fixation--a systematic literature review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2008
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M J ParkerPeterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Orthopaedic Department, Peterborough District Hospital, Thorpe Road, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, UK PE3 6DA. martyn.parker@pbh-tr.nhs.uk
H H G Handoll
Peterborough City Hospital · GBTeesside University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtramedullary fixation of hip fractures involves the application of a plate and screws to the lateral side of the proximal femur. In external fixators, the stabilising component is held outside the thigh by pins or screws driven into the bone.

objectivesTo compare different types of extramedullary fixation implants and external fixators for fixing extracapsular hip fracture in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (July 2005), various other databases, conference proceedings and reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing extramedullary implants or external fixators for fixing extracapsular hip fracture in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were pooled where appropriate. MAIN

resultsThe 14 included trials tested seven comparisons in a total of 2222 mainly female and older participants. All trials had methodological flaws that may affect the validity of their results. Three trials comparing a fixed nail plate (Jewett or McLaughlin) with the sliding hip screw (SHS) found an increased risk of fixation failure for fixed nail plates. The two trials comparing the Resistance Augmented Bateaux (RAB) plate with the SHS had contrasting results, notably in terms of operative complications, fixation failure and anatomical restoration. One trial comparing the Pugh nail and the SHS found no significant difference between implants. Two trials compared the Medoff plate with the SHS. One trial reported higher blood losses and longer operation times for the Medoff plate. There was a lower risk of fixation failure with the Medoff plate for unstable trochanteric fractures. Two trials compared the Medoff plate with three different screw-plate systems. There were no statistically significant differences in outcome for trochanteric fractures. For subtrochanteric fractures, there was a lower fixation failure rate for the Medoff plate, but no evidence for differences in longer-term outcomes. Two trials comparing the Gotfried percutaneous plate with a SHS found a reduced blood loss with the Gotfried plate. A higher intra-operative fixation failure rate of the Gotfried plate may indicate some restriction to its use. Two trials found less operative trauma for external fixation when compared with the SHS. Final outcome appeared similar. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe markedly increased fixation failure rate of fixed nail plates compared with the SHS is a major consideration and thus the SHS appears preferable. There was insufficient evidence from other comparisons to draw definite conclusions.

Indexed as

Bone PlatesBone ScrewsFracture FixationHip FracturesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID16437422
OpenAlexW4238061069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.