Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26509264›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Bone Morphogenetic Protein for the Healing of Tibial Fracture: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Jiezhi Dai, Li Li, Chaoyin Jiang, Chunyang Wang, Hua Chen, Yimin Chai

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. The top three unanswered questions in the management of open fractures.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jiezhi DaiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Li LiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Chaoyin JiangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Chunyang WangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Hua ChenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Yimin ChaiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CNShanghai Sixth People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo review the evidence from RCTs on clinical outcomes and benefit of acute tibial fracture and nonunion treated with and without BMPs. MATERIAL: We searched multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMABSE, BIOSIS and Cochrane central) as well as reference lists of articles and contacted authors. Evaluated outcomes included union rate, revision rate, hardware failure and infection. The weighted and standard mean difference (WMD and SMD) or the relative risk (RR) was calculated for continuous or dichotomous data respectively. The quality of the trial was assessed, and meta-analyses were performed with the Cochrane Collaboration's REVMAN 5.0 software.

resultsEight RCTs involving 1113 patients were included. For acute tibial fracture, BMP group was associated with a higher rate of union (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.30) and a lower rate of revision (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.85) compared with control group. No significant differences were found in rate of hardware failure and infection. The pooled RR for achieving union for tibial fracture nonunion was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.13). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of revision (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.85) and infection (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37 to 1.02).

conclusionStudy on acute tibial fractures suggests that BMP is more effective that controls, for bone union and for decreasing the rate of surgical revision to achieve union. For the treatment of tibial fracture nonunion, BMP leads to similar results to as autogenous bone grafting. Finally, well-designed RCTs of BMP for tibial fracture treatment are also needed.

Indexed as

Fracture HealingBone Morphogenetic ProteinsFractures, UnunitedHumansOdds RatioPublication BiasRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTibial FracturesTreatment OutcomeBone Morphogenetic Proteins

Identifiers

PMID26509264
PMCPMC4624800
OpenAlexW1950674428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.