ArticleInternational orthopaedics2013
Reply to Comment on Zhou et al.: Do we really need closed-suction drainage in total hip arthroplasty? A meta-analysis.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04229212 (Effectiveness of Using Closed-suction Drainage in Treating Proximal Femur Fracture With Cephalomedullary Nail), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Effectiveness of Using Closed-suction Drainage in Treating Proximal Femur Fracture With Cephalomedullary Nail
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The use of postoperative suction drainage in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.International orthopaedics · 2015Pooled it
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.