Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24384889›Full record

ReviewDer Orthopade2014

[Complications after osteosynthesis of the proximal femur].

M J Raschke, N Alt

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Orthopade, 2014. 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
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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, 2 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.

M J RaschkeKlinik für Unfall-, Hand- undWiederherstellungschirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Gebäude W1, 48149, Münster, Deutschland, uhchir@uni-muenster.de.
N Alt
University Hospital Münster · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFractures of the proximal femur are among the most common fractures of all bones. Currently nearly every trauma surgeon has to be able to treat proximal femur fractures either with osteosynthesis or with a prosthesis. An increase of 200-300 % of fractures of the proximal femur is expected within the next 30 years. In addition an increase of periprosthetic fractures of the proximal and distal femur can be observed. The correct treatment of these complications is a challenging objective for the trauma surgeon.

objectivesThis article provides an overview on complications after osteosynthesis of the proximal femur. It contributes treatment options depending on the implant, the patient specific risk factors and the special problems of postoperative care.

methodsA selective review of the literature using Pubmed under consideration of experiences gained in the treatment of complications after osteosynthesis of the proximal femur was performed.

conclusionsDue to the increasing incidence of fractures of the proximal femur on the one hand and complications after operative treatment of these fractures on the other, the trauma surgeon must provide differentiated therapy concepts depending on the individual risk factors of different patients. Moreover, trauma surgeons must know how to treat the potential complications of these procedures.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineFemoral Neck FracturesFemur Head NecrosisFracture Fixation, InternalHumansOsteoarthritis, HipPeripheral Nerve InjuriesProsthesis-Related Infections

Identifiers

PMID24384889
OpenAlexW2198661395

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.