ArticleDer Unfallchirurg2021
[Reliability of the FFP classification in pelvic fractures].
Article in Der Unfallchirurg, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pelvic Fractures in Adults and the Importance of Associated Injuries-A Current Multi-Disciplinary Approach.Clinics and practice · 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPelvic fractures are typical for frail geriatric patients. They are characterized by increasing pain and loss of mobility. As geriatric pelvic fractures differ from the typical high velocity injuries, Rommens and Hofmann recommended a new classification for fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) in 2013. In addition to the location of the fracture they also assessed the degree of dislocation.
objectiveCompared to known fracture classifications of the pelvis, the FFP classification appears complex. Therefore, this study was designed to investigate the interobserver reliability of the FFP classification. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe members of the Section of Geriatric Traumatology (DGOU) were presented with 10 DICOM data sets with fractures of the pelvis for classification. As a reference the classification of P.M. Rommens, the author of the FFP, was established.
resultsIn this study 24 consultants (47%) and 27 (53%) residents took part. Also, six radiologists were invited to participate. A total of 493 assessments were made. In 184 (37%) cases there was agreement with the reference, in 183 (37%) computed tomography images the fractures were classified lower, in 26 (26%) higher than the reference. This initially resulted in a Cohens κ coefficient of 0.36. This corresponds to a sufficient agreement (fair) according to Garbuz. With the reduction of the classification to four main groups, the Cohens κ coefficient increased to a satisfactory value.
conclusionThe reasons for the partly low agreement could be the participants' lack of experience and an inaccurate description of the classification levels. In the end, however, the FFP classification is the only one that meaningfully represents pelvic fractures of geriatric and frail patients. By simplifying to the four main groups, a better interobserver reliability is achieved. For a successful treatment, however, attention to the individual patient and the "fracture personality" is essential.
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.