Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25213190›Full record

SynthesisMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2014

Proximal femoral nail vs. dynamic hip screw in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis.

Kairui Zhang, Sheng Zhang, Jun Yang, Weiqiang Dong, Shengnan Wang, Yirong Cheng, Mohammed Al-Qwbani, Qiang Wang, Bin Yu

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Differences in hip fracture care in Europe: a systematic review of recent annual reports of hip fracture registries.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Kairui ZhangDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China (mainland).
Sheng ZhangDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China (mainland).
Jun YangDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China (mainland).
Weiqiang DongDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China (mainland).
Shengnan WangDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China (mainland).
Yirong ChengDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China (mainland).
Mohammed Al-QwbaniDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China (mainland).
Qiang WangDepartment of Orthopaedics, Subei People's Hospital of Jiangsu Province (Clinical Medical College of Yangzhou University), Yangzhou, China (mainland).
Bin YuDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China (mainland).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of proximal femoral nail (PFN) and dynamic hip screw (DHS) in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. MATERIAL AND

methodsRelevant randomized or quasi-randomized controlled studies comparing the effects of PFN and DHS were searched for following the requirements of the Cochrane Library Handbook. Six eligible studies involving 669 fractures were included. Their methodological quality was assessed and data were extracted independently for meta-analysis.

resultsThe results showed that the PFN group had significantly less operative time (WMD: -21.15, 95% CI: -34.91 - -7.39, P=0.003), intraoperative blood loss (WMD: -139.81, 95% CI: -210.39 - -69.22, P=0.0001), and length of incision (WMD: -6.97, 95% CI: -9.19 - -4.74, P<0.00001) than the DHS group. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups regarding postoperative infection rate, lag screw cut-out rate, or reoperation rate.

conclusionsThe current evidence indicates that PFN may be a better choice than DHS in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures.

Indexed as

Bone NailsBone ScrewsAgedAged, 80 and overBlood Loss, SurgicalFemaleFemurHip FracturesHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsReoperation

Identifiers

PMID25213190
PMCPMC4170652

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.