Erratum to: more complications in uncemented compared to cemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: a randomized controlled trial of 201 patients, with one year follow-up.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Patients with femoral neck fractures treated by bipolar hemiarthroplasty have superior to unipolar hip function and lower erosion rates and pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023
   Pooled it
2. Cemented or Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture? Data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  More complications in uncemented compared to cemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: a randomized controlled trial of 201 patients, with one year follow-up.2017

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.