Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36950069›Full record

ReviewEmergency medicine international2023

Recent Progress in the Classification and Operation of Sacral Fractures.

Nian Sun, Yijun Liu, Haohan Yan, Zhiqiang Zhang, Yanbing Li, Canjun Zeng

Full text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Emergency medicine international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

6 authors.

Nian SunDepartment of Foot and Ankle Surgery, Center for Orthopaedic Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Yijun LiuDepartment of Foot and Ankle Surgery, Center for Orthopaedic Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Haohan YanDepartment of Foot and Ankle Surgery, Center for Orthopaedic Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhiqiang ZhangDepartment of Foot and Ankle Surgery, Center for Orthopaedic Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Yanbing LiNational Key Discipline of Human Anatomy, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510000, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2452-1564
Canjun ZengDepartment of Foot and Ankle Surgery, Center for Orthopaedic Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3693-5900

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most sacral fractures are caused by high-energy, violent injuries, often accompanied by lumbosacral plexus injuries, which can cause instability of the posterior pelvic ring or lumbosacral junction in severe cases. Currently, the most commonly used clinical classification methods are Denis classification, Tile classification, Isler classification, and Denis II classification. In recent years, lumbosacral vertebral injury classification and injury degree scoring systems have often been applied clinically as the choice of treatment methods. At present, the internal fixation and implantation methods of sacral fracture are developing in the direction of positive, efficient, safe, and minimally invasive. But different fixation methods have their own indications, which should be strictly followed. This article reviews the classification of sacral fractures and the latest progress in surgical treatment.

Identifiers

PMID36950069
PMCPMC10024997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read20
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.