Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29162931›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2017

Comparison of clinical outcomes with InterTan vs Gamma nail or PFNA in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: A meta-analysis.

Jian-Xiong Ma, Ming-Jie Kuang, Zheng-Rui Fan, Fei Xing, Yun-Long Zhao, Lu-Kai Zhang, Heng-Ting Chen, Chao Han, Xin-Long Ma

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jian-Xiong MaBiomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, People's Republic of China.
Ming-Jie KuangBiomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, People's Republic of China.
Zheng-Rui FanBiomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, People's Republic of China.
Fei XingBiomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, People's Republic of China.
Yun-Long ZhaoBiomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, People's Republic of China.
Lu-Kai ZhangBiomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, People's Republic of China.
Heng-Ting ChenBiomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, People's Republic of China.
Chao HanBiomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, People's Republic of China. craborth@163.com.
Xin-Long MaBiomechanics Labs of Orthopaedics Institute, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300050, People's Republic of China. 2009021106@tmu.edu.cn.
Tianjin Hospital · CNTianjin Medical University General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intertrochanteric fractures are common injuries in the elderly. Conventional intramedullary nails including Gamma 3 locking nail and proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) were designed for unstable intertrochanteric fractures. The InterTan (IT) nail system, introduced in 2005, has been reported superior biomechanical and clinical outcomes compared with 1-screw nailing system. However, some recent studies have reported that IT did not improve functional recovery in patients with intertrochanteric fractures. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective cohort studies were included in our meta-analysis. We used the PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane Handbook to evaluate the quality of included studies to ensure that the pooled data of our meta-analysis were reliable and veritable. Our pooled data analysis demonstrated that IT was as effective as the control group in terms of Harris Hip Score (HHS), blood loss, total complications, union time, length of hospital stay, revision rate, and fluoroscopy time. IT shows less implant cut-out rate and femoral fractures when compared with control groups.

Indexed as

Bone NailsRotationAgedAged, 80 and overBiasBlood Loss, SurgicalBone ScrewsFemaleFluoroscopyHip FracturesHumansLength of StayMalePostoperative ComplicationsPublication BiasRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID29162931
PMCPMC5698321
OpenAlexW2770200178

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.