ArticleInternational orthopaedics2014
Radiographic quantification of dynamic hip screw migration.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparative study between multiple cannulated screws and dynamic hip screw for fixation of femoral neck fracture in adults.International orthopaedics · 2015Trial
- Clinical outcomes of dynamic hip screw fixation of intertrochanteric fractures: comparison with additional anti-rotation screw use.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2019Article
- Application of 3D printing rapid prototyping-assisted percutaneous fixation in the treatment of intertrochanteric fracture.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to propose a technique to quantify dynamic hip screw (DHS®) migration on serial anteroposterior (AP) radiographs by accounting for femoral rotation and flexion.
methodsFemoral rotation and flexion were estimated using radiographic projections of the DHS® plate thickness and length, respectively. The method accuracy was evaluated using a synthetic femur fixed with a DHS® and positioned at pre-defined rotation and flexion settings. Standardised measurements of DHS® migration were trigonometrically adjusted for femoral rotation and flexion, and compared with unadjusted estimates in 34 patients.
resultsThe mean difference between the estimated and true femoral rotation and flexion values was 1.3° (95% CI 0.9-1.7°) and -3.0° (95% CI - 4.2° to -1.9°), respectively. Adjusted measurements of DHS® migration were significantly larger than unadjusted measurements (p = 0.045).
conclusionThe presented method allows quantification of DHS® migration with adequate bias correction due to femoral rotation and flexion.
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.