Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30170443›Full record

Observational studyMedicine2018

Comparison of the efficacy and characteristics of metallic foreign body extraction by incision surgery and x-ray guided forceps after body-surface projection positioning: A STROBE-compliant article.

Hexiang Qian, Xianju Qin, Guangfu Xing, Changwen Shi, Li Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 1 institution in 1 country.

Hexiang QianDepartment of Surgery, Shanghai Eighth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Xianju Qin
Guangfu Xing
Changwen Shi
Li Zhang
Creative Commons · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A foreign body retained in soft tissue may give rise to infection and dysfunction, which may pose a potential threat to patient health. Our study is to compare the efficacy and characteristics of metallic foreign body (MFB) extraction from soft tissue by incision surgery and x-ray-guided forceps after body surface projection positioning.This study enrolled 775 patients who underwent percutaneous MFB extraction between January 2011 and December 2016. A total of 257 cases underwent extraction by incision surgery and 518 cases underwent x-ray-guided forceps extraction after body surface projection positioning.All patients were diagnosed by x-ray and the diagnostic accuracy rate was 100%. In the incision surgery group, MFB extraction was successful in 193 of 257 cases. All cases in the forceps extraction group were successful, and the success rate was significantly higher than that of the incision surgery group (100% vs.75.1%, P < .01). Sixty-four patients in the incision surgery group who failed treatment were subsequently treated with x-ray-guided forceps extraction and all MFBs were extracted. The symptoms in all patients were relieved, wound healing was good, and there were no major bleeding, incision infection, or other complications.Compared with incision surgery, x-ray-guided foreign body forceps extraction after body surface projection positioning is a less invasive, safer, and more effective treatment for MFB extraction.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultFemaleForeign BodiesHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMaleMiddle AgedRadiography, InterventionalSurgical InstrumentsSurgical WoundTomography, X-Ray ComputedTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30170443
PMCPMC6392915
OpenAlexW2889448042

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.