Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36381853›Full record

ReviewCureus2022

Hook Plate Versus Distal Locking Plate for the Fixation of Unstable Distal Clavicle Injuries, Outcomes and Complications: A Meta-Analysis.

Mohamed Elrih, John Quinlan

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2022. 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
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mohamed ElrihTrauma and Orthopaedics, Tallaght University Hospital, Dublin, IRL.
John QuinlanTrauma and Orthopaedics, Tallaght University Hospital, Dublin, IRL.
Tallaght University Hospital · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous interventions are advised for the surgical management of distal clavicle fractures. Hook plate (HP) and distal locking plate (DLP) are among the commonly used techniques; nonetheless, no single procedure is deemed to be the benchmark treatment. Thus, the aim of the study is to conduct a comparative analysis, hopefully, to recommend the superior method between the two operations. PubMed, Embase via Ovid and Web of science were electronically searched between January 2000 and to date for studies directly comparing HP to DLP. Comparative retrospective/prospective and randomized studies were incorporated. Constant-Murley score "CMS" at a minimum of 12 months, pain visual analogue scale "VAS", coracoclavicular distance "CCD" and reported complications were analysed. Review manager software was used for the statistical analyses. The total number of patients was 523; 274 (52.3%) with HP and 249 (47.6%) with DLP, 81 of which were associated with CC reconstruction. The mean follow up was 38.7 and 37.03 months for HP and DLP, respectively. CMS leaned towards the DLP group with no statistically significant difference (P=0.06). VAS was in favour of the DLP with again no statistically significant difference (P=0.12). In terms of CCD, the comparison favoured the HP with a lesser CCD postoperatively and a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). Complications were significantly higher in the HP group (P<0.0001). Contrary to our hypothesis, though HP did show a better radiological outcome; nonetheless, DLP did demonstrate a better functional result with a lesser rate of complications and the ability to retain the implant avoiding a second surgery.

Indexed as

acromioclavicular dislocationdistal clavicle fracturedistal clavicle injuriesdistal locking platehook plate

Identifiers

PMID36381853
PMCPMC9642879
OpenAlexW4307475422

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.