Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32913616›Full record

ArticleOrthopedic reviews2020

Cemented

Maria Serena Oliva, Raffaele Vitiello, Michele Cauteruccio, Elisa Pesare, Giuseppe Rovere, Cesare Meschini, Francesco Liuzza, Giulio Maccauro, Antonio Ziranu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Proximal femoral replacement for oncologic and non-oncologic indications: a retrospective study over a 13-year period.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maria Serena OlivaDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome.
Raffaele VitielloDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome.
Michele CauteruccioDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome.
Elisa PesareDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome.
Giuseppe RovereDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome.
Cesare MeschiniDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome.
Francesco LiuzzaDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome.
Giulio MaccauroDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome.
Antonio ZiranuDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome.
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The proximal femur is the long bone most commonly affected by metastatic disease. There are many treatment options, such as hip megaprostheses. A topic still widely debated in literature is the use of cemented or uncemented megaprostheses in this kind of patients. The purpose of this review is to examine both these surgical options to understand which of them should be preferred in metastatic patients. Twelve articles were finally included in the review. Eight authors used cemented mega - prostheses, two cementless megaprostheses and two authors used both techniques. Better functional outcomes and lower infection rates were found in cementless mega - prostheses. More studies have to be performed to choose the better technique and improve patients' quality of life.

Indexed as

cementfemurmegaproshesismetastasis

Identifiers

PMID32913616
PMCPMC7459367
OpenAlexW3038783007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.