Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26657600›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2015

Internal fixation treatments for intertrochanteric fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized evidence.

Jiajie Yu, Chao Zhang, Ling Li, Joey S W Kwong, Li Xue, Xiantao Zeng, Li Tang, Youping Li, Xin Sun

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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 at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Jiajie YuChinese Evidence-based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, 610041.
Chao ZhangCenter for Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Research, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Hubei, China, 442000.
Ling LiChinese Evidence-based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, 610041.
Joey S W KwongChinese Evidence-based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, 610041.
Li XueDepartment of orthopedics, The third people's hospital of Chengdu, Chengdu, China,610031.
Xiantao ZengCenter for Evidence-based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China,430071.
Li TangSchool of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia, 6845.
Youping LiChinese Evidence-based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, 610041.
Xin SunChinese Evidence-based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, 610041.
Sichuan University · CNChengdu Third People's Hospital · CNCurtin University · AUTaihe Hospital · CNZhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The relative effects of internal fixation strategies for intertrochanteric fracture after operation remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to address this important issue. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL for RCTs that compared different internal fixation implants in patients with intertrochanteric fracture at 6-month follow-up or longer. We ultimately included 43 trials enrolling 6911 patients; most trials were small in sample sizes and events. Their risk of bias was generally unclear due to insufficient reporting. Because of these, no statistically significant differences were present from most of the comparisons across all the outcomes, and no definitive conclusions can be made. However, a number of trials compared two commonly used internal fixation strategies, gamma nail (GN) and sliding hip screw (SHS). There is good evidence suggesting that, compared to SHS, GN may increase the risk of cut out (OR = 1.87, 95% CI, 1.08 to 3.21), re-operation (OR = 1.61, 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.53), intra-operative (OR = 3.14, 95% CI, 1.34 to 7.35) and later fractures (OR = 3.67, 95% CI, 1.37 to 9.83). Future randomized trials or observational studies that are carefully designed and conducted are warranted to establish the effects of alternative internal fixation strategies for intertrochanteric fracture.

Indexed as

Blood Loss, SurgicalFracture Fixation, InternalHip FracturesHospitalizationHumansProspective StudiesQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetreatmentTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26657600
PMCPMC4676068
OpenAlexW2401861011

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.