Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29602699›Full record

SynthesisActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2018

Intramedullary versus extramedullary internal fixation for unstable intertrochanteric fracture, a meta-analysis.

Xi Yu, Hong Wang, Xin Duan, Ming Liu, Zhou Xiang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Xi YuRehabilitation Medicine Center, West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, PR China.
Hong WangDepartment of Orthopaedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, PR China.
Xin DuanDepartment of Orthopaedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, PR China.
Ming LiuDepartment of Orthopaedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, PR China.
Zhou XiangDepartment of Orthopaedics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, PR China. Electronic address: xiangzhou15@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this meta-analysis was to explore the difference between and compare intramedullary fixation (IF) and extramedullary fixation (EF) for unstable intertrochanteric fractures.

methodsWe searched Pubmed database and Cochrane library following by including and excluding articles based from inception to December, 2016. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IF and EF for unstable intertrochanteric fractures were assessed and selected by two researchers independently. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.1 version.

results17 RCTs were enrolled in our meta-analysis comparing IF and EF and showed evidence that IF had lower rate of implant failure RR = 0.2695%CI 0.13-0.51, P < 0.0001 and re-operation (RR = 0.60, 95%CI 0.37-0.98, P = 0.04), while there was no statistical differences of cut-out, postoperative infections and other complications. Moreover, PPM scores verified that IF had better postoperative hip mobility recovery (MD = 0.87, 95%CI 0.08-1.66, P = 0.03).

conclusionIF has lower incidence of failure of implant and reoperation and shows better postoperative functional recovery when treating adult unstable intertrochanteric fracture while the most postoperative complications were not statistically different from EF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

Indexed as

Bone NailsFracture Fixation, InternalFracture Fixation, IntramedullaryHip FracturesHumansExtramedullary fixationInternal fixationIntramedullary fixationTip-apex distanceUnstable intertrochanteric fracture

Identifiers

PMID29602699
PMCPMC6150441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.