Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23955523›Full record

ArticleDer Orthopade2013

[Technical orthopedics. Importance in an increasingly operatively oriented faculty].

B Greitemann, U Maronna

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Orthopade, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 66% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

B GreitemannReha-Klinikum Bad Rothenfelde, Klinik Münsterland, Auf der Stöwwe 11, 49214, Bad Rothenfelde, Deutschland, greitemann@klinik-muensterland.de.
U Maronna
Schüchtermann-Klinik · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The foundation of the German Society for Orthopedics in 1901 was due to a separation from the faculty of surgery because a surgical approach alone did not adequately deal with the symptoms. Orthopedists were initially considered as a fringe group. The conservative treatment approach was initially at the forefront and operative measures were a side line. The main aim was the rehabilitation of patients into a normal life as best as possible. In the conservative area treatment with orthopedic technical aids and appliances rapidly came to play an important role and a great multitude of technical appliances were developed with sometimes very different possible applications. Despite the clearly improved operative treatment approaches in orthopedics and trauma surgery, technical orthopedics still plays a substantial role even today. Healing and supportive aids and appliances are of decisive importance for the treatment of a multitude of diseases and handicaps. They stabilize and improve operative treatment results and often result in new approaches. This depends on cooperation between technicians, therapists and physicians in a team, even in the scientific field. Evidence-based studies on the effectiveness of technical aids are currently still uncommon but recently some clear evidence for effectiveness could be shown. Scientifically this is a very varied field of work. The demographic development presents new requirements which must be dealt with. Technical solutions are often very promising especially in this field. Technical orthopedics remains an important component of the specialty of orthopedics and trauma surgery and with an increasing tendency due to more recent research and development.

Indexed as

HumansJoint DiseasesOrthopedicsPractice Patterns, Physicians'

Identifiers

PMID23955523
OpenAlexW2395842597

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.