Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35504639›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2022

ASSERT (Acute Sacral inSufficiEncy fractuRe augmenTation): randomised controlled, feasibility trial in older people.

Terence Ong, Ana Suazo Di Paola, Cassandra Brookes, Avril Drummond, Paul Hendrick, Paul Leighton, Matthew Jones, Khalid Salem, Nasir Quraishi, Opinder Sahota

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Rehabilitation after pelvic fragility fracture in older adults: a scoping review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

10 authors.

Terence OngDepartment of Healthcare for Older People, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK terenceong@doctors.org.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7473-446X
Ana Suazo Di PaolaLeicester Clinical Trials Unit, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Cassandra BrookesLeicester Clinical Trials Unit, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Avril DrummondDivision of Rehabilitation and Ageing, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1220-8354
Paul HendrickSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Paul LeightonSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Matthew JonesSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Khalid SalemCentre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Nasir QuraishiCentre for Spinal Studies and Surgery, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Opinder SahotaDepartment of Healthcare for Older People, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0055-7637

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the feasibility of designing and conducting a definitive trial to evaluate the effectiveness of sacral fracture fixation compared with non-surgical management among older people admitted with a lateral compression pelvic fragility fracture (PFF).

designSingle-site, parallel, two-arm randomised controlled feasibility trial.

settingA UK tertiary centre hospital.

participantsPatients aged ≥70 years who were ambulating pre-injury requiring hospital admission (within 28 days of injury) with a type 1 lateral compression PFF.

interventionsThe intervention group received sacral fracture fixation (cement augmentation±screw fixation) within 7 days of randomisation. Routine preoperative and postoperative care followed each surgical intervention. The control group received usual care consisting of analgesia, and regular input from the medical and therapy team. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The feasibility outcomes were the number of eligible patients, willingness to be randomised, adherence to allocated treatment, retention, data on the completeness and variability of the proposed definitive trial outcome measures, and reported adverse events.

results241 patients were screened. 13 (5.4%) were deemed eligible to participate. Among the eligible participants, nine (69.2%) were willing to participate. Five participants were randomised to the intervention group and four to the control group. The clinicians involved were willing to allow their patients to be randomised and adhere to the allocated treatment. One participant in the intervention group and two participants in the control group received their allocated treatment. All participants were followed up until 12 weeks post-randomisation, and had an additional safety follow-up assessment at 12 months. Overall, the proportion of completeness of outcome measures was at least 75%. No adverse events were directly related to the trial.

conclusionsThere were significant challenges in recruiting sufficient participants which will need to be addressed prior to a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16719542.

Indexed as

Fractures, StressSpinal FracturesAgedFeasibility StudiesHumansPain ManagementSacrumgeriatric medicineorthopaedic & trauma surgerypain managementtrauma management

Identifiers

PMID35504639
PMCPMC9066477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.