Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24869616›Full record

SynthesisCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie2014

Low-intensity pulsed ultrasonography versus electrical stimulation for fracture healing: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Shanil Ebrahim, Brent Mollon, Sheena Bance, Jason W Busse, Mohit Bhandari

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudySystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Ultrasound and shockwave therapy for acute fractures in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Stimulation for Bone Fractures Healing: A Review.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Electrical stimulation-based bone fracture treatment, if it works so well why do not more surgeons use it?European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2020
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Network Meta-analysis: Users' Guide for Surgeons: Part I - Credibility.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Shanil EbrahimThe Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
Brent MollonThe Division of Orthopaedics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont..
Sheena BanceThe Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
Jason W BusseThe Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Mohit BhandariThe Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and the Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont..
McMaster University · CAStanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo best inform evidence-based patient care, it is often desirable to compare competing therapies. We performed a network meta-analysis to indirectly compare low intensity pulsed ultrasonography (LIPUS) with electrical stimulation (ESTIM) for fracture healing.

methodsWe searched the reference lists of recent reviews evaluating LIPUS and ESTIM that included studies published up to 2011 from 4 electronic databases. We updated the searches of all electronic databases up to April 2012. Eligible trials were those that included patients with a fresh fracture or an existing delayed union or nonunion who were randomized to LIPUS or ESTIM as well as a control group. Two pairs of reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened titles and abstracts, reviewed the full text of potentially eligible articles, extracted data and assessed study quality. We used standard and network meta-analytic techniques to synthesize the data.

resultsOf the 27 eligible trials, 15 provided data for our analyses. In patients with a fresh fracture, there was a suggested benefit of LIPUS at 6 months (risk ratio [RR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.41). In patients with an existing nonunion or delayed union, ESTIM had a suggested benefit over standard care on union rates at 3 months (RR 2.05, 95% CI 0.99-4.24). We found very low-quality evidence suggesting a potential benefit of LIPUS versus ESTIM in improving union rates at 6 months (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58-1.01) in fresh fracture populations.

conclusionTo support our findings direct comparative trials with safeguards against bias assessing outcomes important to patients, such as functional recovery, are required.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyFracture HealingFractures, BoneHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeUltrasonic Therapy

Identifiers

PMID24869616
PMCPMC4035413
OpenAlexW2072833411

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.