Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37055749›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023

Comparison of femoral neck system versus cannulated screws for treatment of femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jiabao Jiang, Jialei Chen, Fei Xing, Hao Liu, Zhou Xiang

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jiabao Jiang *Department of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.
Jialei Chen *Department of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China. chenjialei2016@wchscu.cn.
Fei XingDepartment of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.
Hao LiuDepartment of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.
Zhou XiangDepartment of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.
Sichuan University · CNWest China Hospital of Sichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently, some studies on the efficacy of the femoral neck system (FNS) in treating femoral neck fractures (FNFs) have been published. Therefore, a systematic review was performed to clarify the efficacy and safety of FNS versus cannulated screws (CS) for the treatment of FNFs.

methodThe PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies comparing FNS and CS fixations in FNFs. Intraoperative indicators, postoperative clinical indicators, postoperative complications, and postoperative scores were compared between the implants.

resultsA total of eight studies were included in the study, involving 448 FNFs patients. The results showed that patients in FNS group were significantly lower than the CS group in the number of X-ray exposures (WMD = -10.16; 95% CI, -11.44 to -8.88; P < 0.001; I

conclusionsBased on this meta-analysis, FNS shows better clinical efficacy and safety in treating FNFs compared to CS. However, due to the limited quality and number of included studies and the high heterogeneity of the meta-analysis; large samples and multicenter RCTs are needed to confirm this conclusion in the future. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, Systematic review and Meta-analysis.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021283646.

Indexed as

Femoral Neck FracturesFemur NeckBone ScrewsFracture Fixation, InternalHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeCannulated screwFemoral neck fractureFemoral neck systemInternal fixationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37055749
PMCPMC10099821
OpenAlexW4365448080

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.