ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2021
Comparable results using 2.0-mm vs. 3.5-mm screw augmentation in midshaft clavicle fractures: a 10-year experience.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Supplementary fixation in multifragmentary midshaft clavicle fractures: do interfragmentary screws or suture cerclage improve outcomes compared with plate-only fixation?European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- Have New Plate Designs Reduced the Rate of Hardware Removal Following Midshaft Clavicle Fracture Fixation?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Morphologic profiles of comminuted midshaft clavicle fractures: a preliminary study.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAbsence of cortical alignment in wedge-shaped and multifragmentary fractures (Fx) results in decreased fixation stability. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome using 2.0- vs. 3.5-mm screws for open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in dislocated, wedge-shaped or fragmentary midshaft clavicle fractures. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients suffering from AO/OTA 15 2.A-C midshaft clavicle fractures were operatively treated between 2008 and 2018. 2.0- or 3.5-mm cortical screws were used to restore anatomic alignment in dislocated, wedge-shaped and fragmentary clavicle fractures. Data of radiologic outcome were collected until fracture consolidation was identified.
results80 consecutive patients with a mean age of 44.5 ± 16.3 years, who were operatively treated for dislocated midshaft clavicle fractures were enrolled. 40 patients were treated using 2.0-mm and 40 patients using routine 3.5-mm cortical screws, respectively. Time to fracture consolidation was 12.8 ± 7.8 months. No mal- or non-unions occurred during routine follow-up until 18 months postoperatively.
conclusionRestoring anatomic alignment in wedge or fragmentary clavicle fractures can ultimately be addressed using cortical screw augmentation. Both groups showed comparable results with respect to fracture reduction, fixation and stability as well as time to consolidation of the fracture, while the 2.0-mm screw diameter was associated with easier handling of small Fx fragments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.