Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28210408›Full record

ArticleCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2017

Patterns of Maxillofacial Fractures in Uttar Pradesh, India.

Padmanidhi Agarwal, Divya Mehrotra, Rajul Agarwal, Sumit Kumar, Rahul Pandey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. A retrospective epidemiological review of maxillofacial injuries in a tertiary care centre in Goa, India.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. A Retrospective Study on Profile of Patients with Faciomaxilary Fractures in a Tertiary Care Center.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Mandibular Ramus Fractures: A Proposed Classification.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors.

Padmanidhi AgarwalDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Divya MehrotraDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Rajul AgarwalDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Sumit KumarDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Rahul PandeyDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to obtain dependable epidemiologic data of the variation in cause and characteristics of maxillofacial fractures by identifying, describing, and quantifying trauma. This retrospective study was conducted in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India, over 1 year, based on a systematic computer-assisted database search from March 2015 to March 2016 for maxillofacial fractures. The demographics, etiology, geographic distribution, date of injury, site and number of fractures, and type of intervention were recorded for each. The study population consisted of 1,000 patients with 1,543 fractures. The male:female ratio was 8:1. A peak incidence of fractures was seen in the third decade (mean age: 30.3) with maximum patients younger than 40 years (80.8%). The incidence of fractures was highest in spring (42.9%). Road traffic accidents were the most common cause of trauma (64.4%) and mainly involved two wheelers (60.2%). Single-site fractures were most common. Mostly zygomatic (45.1%) and mandibular fractures (44.4%) were encountered, accounting for approximately 90% of all fractures. The main site of mandibular fractures was the body (34.4%); 46.2% of fractures underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) while 53.8% were treated by closed methods. The study provides important data to contrive future plans for injury prevention. The trend of most traffic-related injuries continues with the increasing traffic on roads. Zygomatic complex and mandibular fractures remain the most frequent. The major populations at risk are young men and those driving two wheelers. The use of helmets could achieve a large reduction in maxillofacial fractures. Awareness for preventive measures and safety guidelines should be propagated and legislation on traffic rules strictly reinforced.

Indexed as

maxillofacial injuryroad traffic accidenttrauma

Identifiers

PMID28210408
PMCPMC5309128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.