SynthesisEuropean journal of medical research2013
Meta-analysis on the efficacy of tourniquet on ankle trauma surgery.
Synthesis in European journal of medical research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retraction note: Meta-analysis on the efficacy of tourniquet on ankle trauma surgery.European journal of medical research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2015-03-26Ethical Violations by Company/Institution/Third Party · Compromised Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn our study, we used meta-analysis to study the efficacy of the tourniquet on ankle trauma surgery. Postoperative infection rate, deep venous thrombosis incidence, hospital stay, and joint range of motion were studied to compare the tourniquet and non-tourniquet groups and provide certain references for clinical decision.
methodsWe searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane controlled trials register for all publications about the efficacy of tourniquet published before November 2012. The quality of included studies was evaluated by two estimators. I2-test and Q-statistic were used for heterogeneity analysis. When there was heterogeneity between studies, the random effects model analysis was applied or else the fixed effects model analysis was used.
resultsThree studies were included with 166 patients suffering from ankle trauma surgery. There was no statistical difference (P >0.05) between the tourniquet and non-tourniquet groups on operation time (mean difference (MD) -5.45, 95% confidence intervals (CI): (-13.98, 3.09)), postoperative infection rate (relative risk (RR) 1.83, 95% CI: (0.65, 5.12)), and deep venous thrombosis incidence (RR 4.13, 95% CI: (0.47, 36.17)). But statistical significances were observed on hospital stays (MD 3.17, 95% CI: (1.39, 4.95)) and joint range of motion (MD - 5.25, 95% CI: (-9.61, -0.89)).
conclusionsIn general, the efficacy of the tourniquet group is comparable to that of the non-tourniquet group. The non-tourniquet group achieved greater benefits for the joint range of motion and reduced the hospital stay. However, a larger number of primary studies is still required for future evaluation of tourniquet efficacy on ankle trauma surgery.
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.