SynthesisPloS one2016
Meta-Analysis of a Complex Network of Non-Pharmacological Interventions: The Example of Femoral Neck Fracture.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Curative efficacy of surgical procedures for older patients with femoral neck fracture: a network meta-analysis and systematic review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effectiveness of treatments for acute and sub-acute mechanical non-specific low back pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- Introduction of a guide based on a femoral neck section for fixation with multiple screws: a cadaveric study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2018Article
- Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical interventions raise specific methodological issues in network meta-analysis (NMA). They are usually multi-component interventions resulting in complex networks of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with multiple groups and sparse connections. PURPOSE: To illustrate the applicability of the NMA in a complex network of surgical interventions and to prioritize the available interventions according to a clinically relevant outcome.
methodsWe considered RCTs of treatments for femoral neck fracture in adults. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov up to November 2015. Two reviewers independently selected trials, extracted data and used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias. A group of orthopedic surgeons grouped similar but not identical interventions under the same node. We synthesized the network using a Bayesian network meta-analysis model. We derived posterior odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs) for all possible pairwise comparisons. The primary outcome was all-cause revision surgery.
resultsData from 27 trials were combined, for 4,186 participants (72% women, mean age 80 years, 95% displaced fractures). The median follow-up was 2 years. With hemiarthroplasty (HA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) as a comparison, risk of surgical revision was significantly higher with the treatments unthreaded cervical osteosynthesis (OR 8.0 [95% CrI 3.6-15.5] and 5.9 [2.4-12.0], respectively), screw (9.4 [6.0-16.5] and 6.7 [3.9-13.6]) and plate (12.5 [5.8-23.8] and 7.8 [3.8-19.4]).
conclusionsIn older women with displaced femoral neck fractures, arthroplasty (HA and THA) is the most effective treatment in terms of risk of revision surgery. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO no. CRD42013004218. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Network Meta-Analysis, Level 1.
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.