Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34761281›Full record

ArticleDer Unfallchirurg2021

[Clinical studies in trauma surgery and orthopedics: read, interpret and implement].

Dirk Stengel, Wolf Mutschler, Luzi Dubs, Stephan Kirschner, Tobias Renkawitz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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.

Dirk StengelForschung - Ressort Medizin, BG Kliniken - Klinikverbund der Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung gGmbH, Leipziger Pl. 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland. Dirk.Stengel@bg-kliniken.de.
Wolf MutschlerKlinik für Allgemeine, Unfall- und Wiederherstellungschirurgie, LMU Klinikum der Universität München, Nußbaumstr. 20, 80336, München, Deutschland.
Luzi DubsOrthopädische Chirurgie, Rychenbergstr. 155, 8400, Winterthur, Schweiz.
Stephan KirschnerKlinik für Orthopädie, St. Vincentius-Kliniken gAG, Steinhäuserstr. 18, 76135, Karlsruhe, Deutschland.
Tobias RenkawitzKlinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Schlierbacher Landstraße 200a, 69118, Heidelberg, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Informative, participatory clinical decision-making needs to combine both skills and expertise as well as current scientific evidence. The flood of digital information makes it difficult in everyday clinical practice to keep up to date with the latest publications. This article provides assistance for coping with this problem. A basic understanding of prior and posterior probabilities as well as systematic error (bias) makes it easier to weigh up the benefits and risks, e.g. of a (surgical) intervention compared to a nonsurgical treatment. Randomized controlled trials (RCT, with all modern modifications) deliver undistorted results but in orthopedic and trauma surgery can lead to a heavily selected nonrepresentative sample and the results must be confirmed or refuted by further, independent RCTs. Large-scale observational data (e.g. from registries) can be modelled in a quasi-experimental manner and accompany RCTs in health technology assessment.

Indexed as

OrthopedicsAdaptation, PsychologicalHumansBiasConfidence intervalsProbabilityRandomized controlled trialScientific misconduct

Identifiers

PMID34761281
PMCPMC8579904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.