ArticleInternational orthopaedics2023
Clinical trial of a low-cost external fixator for global surgery use.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a low-cost external fixation system: an off-label solution for resource-limited settings.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- Comparative outcome study of the management of open tibia shaft fractures using Ilizarov frame fixator and linear rail system at University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria.International orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Orthopaedic Trauma in Sudan: Delivering Care and Improving Outcomes in a War-Torn System.Orthopedic reviews · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeA low-cost modular external fixator for the lower limb has been developed for global surgery use. The purpose of this study is to assess outcome measures in the first clinical use of the device.
methodsA prospective cohort study was conducted with patients recruited in two trauma hospitals. Initial clinical procedure data were collected, and patients were followed up every two weeks until 12 weeks or definitive fixation. Follow-up assessed infection, stability, and radiographic outcomes. In addition, patient-reported outcomes and surgeons' feedback on device usability were collected by questionnaires.
resultsThe external fixator was used on 17 patients. Ten were mono-lateral, five were joint spanning, and two were delta configuration. One patient had a pin site infection at 12-week follow-up. All were stable when tested mechanically and using radiographic assessment, and 53% were converted to definitive fixation.
conclusionThe low-cost external fixator developed is appropriate for use in global surgery trauma centres with good clinical outcomes. PROSPECTIVE TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE: SLCTR/2021/025 (06 Sep 2021).
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.