SynthesisMedicine2018
Intramedullary fixation versus plate fixation for displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures: A systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Functional outcomes and complications of intramedullary fixation devices for Midshaft clavicle fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Pooled it
- Functional outcomes and complications of plate fixation for midshaft clavicle fractures by type and location: a systematic review and meta-analysis.JSES international · 2024Review
- Current concepts in the treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures in adults.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDisplaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures (DMCFs) are common injuries. Both intramedullary fixation (IMF) and plate fixation (PF) have been described and routinely used. Multiple trials have been conducted to compare these treatments. Multiple meta-analyses have been published to compare IMF and PF treatment for DMCFs; however, the results remain controversial. The purposes of this study were to perform a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing IMF and PF treatment for DMCFs, to help decision makers critically evaluate the current meta-analyses, and to propose a guide through the best available evidence.
methodWe searched the Cochrane library, PubMed, and EMBASE data bases. Two authors independently scanned titles and abstracts to exclude irrelevant articles and identify meta-analyses that met the eligibility criteria. The methodological quality of the meta-analysis was independently assessed by the 2 authors using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Heterogeneity information of each variable was extracted from the included studies. An I of <60% is accepted in this systematic review. The Jadad algorithm was then applied to determine which of the meta-analyses provided the best evidence.
resultsEight meta-analysis met the inclusion criteria in this study. AMSTAR scores varied from 7 to 9. Heterogeneity of each outcome was acceptable. Four authors independently selected the same meta-analysis as providing the highest quality of evidence using the Jadad decision algorithm.
conclusionThis systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses suggests that compared with PF, major reintervention and refracture after implant removal occurred more frequently after PF of DMCFs. No differences in terms of function and non-union between PF and IMF were observed. Future research should focus on fracture selection for IMF and further improvement of plates and IM devices.
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.