SynthesisMedicine2016
Comparison of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and conventional plate osteosynthesis for humeral shaft fracture: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review of humeral shaft fracture (OTA/AO 12) complicated with iatrogenic radial nerve injury.European journal of medical research · 2024Pooled it
- MIPO versus nailing for humeral shaft fractures: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomised clinical trials and observational studies.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022Pooled it
- Risk factors associated with delayed union after open reduction and plate fixation for humeral diaphyseal fractures.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025Article
- Is Minimally Invasive Plating Osteosynthesis Better Than Conventional Open Plating for Humeral Shaft Fractures? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2021Review
- Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for the treatment of sternal fracture in the lower chest: a case report.The Journal of international medical research · 2019Article
- Interventions for humeral shaft fractures: mixed treatment comparisons of clinical trials.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and conventional plate osteosynthesis (CPO) for humeral shaft fracture.
methodsPotential academic articles were identified from the Cochrane Library, Medline (1966-2016.3), PubMed (1966-2016.3), Embase (1980-2016.3), and ScienceDirect (1966-2016.3). Gray studies were identified from the references of the included literature. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCT involving MIPO and CPO for humeral shaft fracture were included. Two independent reviewers performed independent data abstraction. I statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. Fixed or random effects model was used for meta-analysis.
resultsTwo RCTs and 3 non-RCTs met the inclusion criteria. There was a lower incidence of iatrogenic radial nerve palsy in patients with MIPO (P = 0.006). There was no statistically significant difference in in the risk of developing nonunion, delay union, malformation, screw loosening, infection, operation time, UCLA, and MEPS function score between the 2 groups.
conclusionMIPO decreased incidence of iatrogenic radial nerve palsy and is an efficacy and safety technique for humeral shaft fracture. Due to the limited quality and data of the evidence currently available, more high-quality RCTs are required.
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.