Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29396414›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2018

Comparing the Intramedullary Nail and Extramedullary Fixation in Treatment of Unstable Intertrochanteric Fractures.

Wen-Qiang Zhang, Jian Sun, Chun-Yu Liu, Hong-Yao Zhao, Yi-Feng Sun

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Comparison of the Dynamic Cut-Out Failure Modes of Common Proximal Femoral Fixation Devices Using a Mesh-Free Computational Method.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Wen-Qiang ZhangOrthopaedics Department of Shandong Provincial Qianfoshan Hospital, Shandong University, Jingshi Road 16766, Jinan, Shandong, 250014, PR China.
Jian SunCommunity health service center of zhanhua fuyuan street, Yanhe road 453, Binzhou, Shandong, 256800, PR China.
Chun-Yu LiuOrthopaedics Department of Shandong Provincial Qianfoshan Hospital, Shandong University, Jingshi Road 16766, Jinan, Shandong, 250014, PR China.
Hong-Yao ZhaoOrthopaedics Department of Shandong Provincial Qianfoshan Hospital, Shandong University, Jingshi Road 16766, Jinan, Shandong, 250014, PR China.
Yi-Feng SunOrthopaedics Department of Shandong Provincial Qianfoshan Hospital, Shandong University, Jingshi Road 16766, Jinan, Shandong, 250014, PR China. syf498054232@163.com.
Shandong Provincial QianFoShan Hospital · CNShandong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Treatment options for unstable intertrochanteric fractures include intramedullary nail and extramedullary fixation, although evidence regarding the most appropriate treatment for such fractures remains controversial. Our hypothesis was that there would be no obvious differences in mortality rates, functional outcomes and complications between the two groups. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis to compare the relative advantages of intramedullary nail and extramedullary fixation. A total of 10 randomized controlled trials including only patients with unstable intertrochanteric fractures were included in the final analysis. We found that no statistically significant difference in one-year mortality was observed between the two groups (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.55-1.10, p = 0.160). Analysis of exact p values from five included studies indicated that functional outcomes were markedly better for patients of the intramedullary nail group when compared with those of the extramedullary fixation group (p = 0.0028), although evidence remains controversial. Higher incidences of all complications were noted for extramedullary fixation (RR:1.48, 95% CI: 1.12-1.96, p = 0.006). However, no significant differences in implant-related complications were observed between the two groups (RR:1.20, 95% CI: 0.73-1.97, p = 0.475). Therefore, comparing with extramedullary fixation, the intramedullary nail method would be more reliable and should be encouraging for unstable intertrochanteric fractures.

Indexed as

Hip FracturesHumansPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical Procedures, OperativeSurvival AnalysisTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID29396414
PMCPMC5797071
OpenAlexW2806680857

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.