Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31440889›Full record

ArticleInternational orthopaedics2020

Leeds-Genoa Non-Union Index: a clinical tool for asessing the need for early intervention after long bone fracture fixation.

Emmanuele Santolini, Robert M West, Peter V Giannoudis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International orthopaedics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A Scoring System for Predicting Nonunion After Intramedullary Nailing of Femoral Shaft Fractures.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

3 authors.

Emmanuele SantoliniAcademic Unit of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University of Genoa, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Largo R. Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy.
Robert M WestLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, 101 Clarendon Road, Leeds, UK.
Peter V GiannoudisAcademic Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds General Infirmary, Clarendon wing, Level D, LS13EX, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK. p.giannoudi@aol.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5205-7696

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aim of the studyThe aim of this case-control study was to develop a clinical decision rule to support assessment of the risk of long-bone non-union and plan for appropriate early intervention.

methodsTwo hundred patients (100 cases and 100 controls) were recruited. Risk factors identified to contribute to the development of non-union were recorded and analysed with a multivariable logistic regression model. Tabulation of the outcome (non-union/union) against each risk factor in turn (univariable analysis) was carried out. Odds ratios and confidence intervals were derived using Wald's method. A receiver-operator curve was calculated and the area under the curve was computed. Having established the eight most important risk factors, a non-union risk index was developed as the count of the risk factors present in each patient.

resultsThe five risk factors for non-union with greater effect size were post-surgical fracture gap > 4 mm (odds ratio (OR) = 11.97 95% CI (4.27, 33.53)), infection superficial/deep (OR 10.16 (2.44, 42.36)), not optimum mechanical stability (OR 10.06 (3.75, 26.97)), displacement > 75% of shaft width (OR 6.81 (2.21, 20.95)), and site of fracture-tibia (OR 4.33 (1.32, 14.14)). The ROC curve for the non-union index was 0.924, sensitivity 91%, specificity 77%.

conclusionsThe non-union index derived from counting risk factors predicts union for 0-4 risk factors and non-union for 5-8 risk factors. It can be readily applied and can guide clinicians about the risk of development of long-bone non-union. It can become a powerful aid for assessing fracture fixation outcome and to support early intervention.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision RulesAdultAgedCase-Control StudiesFemaleFemoral FracturesFracture FixationFracture HealingFractures, UnunitedHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTibial FracturesEarly interventionFemurNon-unionPrediction indexTibia

Identifiers

PMID31440889
PMCPMC6938791

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.