ArticleDer Unfallchirurg2016
[Omitted spinal X-ray examination after a fall from a height of 3 m].
Article in Der Unfallchirurg, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A 59-year-old patient with right-sided chest pains after a fall from a height of 3 m was referred to hospital by an emergency physician. The chest x-rays showed fractures of the third and seventh ribs on the right side. Inpatient analgesic therapy was initiated and after 3 days the patient was discharged from hospital for further outpatient treatment. As the pain persisted the patient consulted a surgeon 5 weeks later and the first X-ray examination of the spine was carried out which revealed the formation of several wedge-shaped thoracolumbar vertebral bodies. Further magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnostics also revealed alterations to T10, T12, L1 and L3 as well as radiological signs of Scheuermann's disease; however, a definite statement differentiating these findings from older spinal fractures as a result of the accident was no longer possible. The patient claimed that the hospital failed to perform spinal X-ray investigations leading to prolonged pain and limitations in the quality of life. An external expert stated that the distracting injury of the ribs and the pain medication might have veiled the additional vertebral fractures. Thus, an earlier diagnosis of the apparently stable vertebral fractures would not have changed the conservative therapy approach. The decision of the arbitration board differed from the expert opinion as additional imaging techniques of the spine should have been initially performed due to the mechanism of injury. Although no irreversible damage to health resulted an earlier targeted treatment could have reduced the overall length of therapy.
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.