ArticleScientific reports2022
A computed tomography based survey study investigating the agreement of the therapeutic strategy for fragility fractures of the pelvis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reported complications after spinopelvic fixation for U-type sacral fractures in older adults: a systematic review with narrative synthesis.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Pooled it
- Pelvic insufficiency fractures in the elderly - what insights has the past year of research brought? A narrative review.Innovative surgical sciences · 2025Review
- [Sacral H-shaped fractures between traumatic, insufficiency and fatigue fractures : Similarities, differences and controversies].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis: Current Practices and Future Directions.Current osteoporosis reports · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Treatment recommendations for fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) have been provided along with the good reliable FFP classification but they are not proven in large studies and recent reports challenge these recommendations. Thus, we aimed to determine the usefulness of the FFP classification determining the treatment strategy and favored procedures in six level 1 trauma centers. Sixty cases of FFP were evaluated by six experienced pelvic surgeons, six inexperienced surgeons in training, and one surgeon trained by the originator of the FFP classification during three repeating sessions using computed tomography scans with multiplanar reconstruction. The intra-rater reliability and inter-rater reliability for therapeutic decisions (non-operative treatment vs. operative treatment) were moderate, with Fleiss kappa coefficients of 0.54 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.62) and 0.42 (95% CI 0.34-0.49). We found a therapeutic disagreement predominantly for FFP II related to a preferred operative therapy for FFP II. Operative treated cases were generally treated with an anterior-posterior fixation. Despite the consensus on an anterior-posterior fixation, the chosen procedures are highly variable and most plausible based on the surgeon's preference.
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.