ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2023
An updated systematic review and meta‑analysis comparing deltoid‑split approach with deltopectoral approach for proximal humerus fractures.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 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.
- Article
- DeltopectoralWorld journal of orthopedics · 2025Article
- Humeral head avascular necrosis: etiology, diagnosis, and management.Clinics in shoulder and elbow · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the currently available data and to compare the important clinical and functional outcomes in patients with proximal humerus fractures who were treated using deltoid split (DS) or deltopectoral (DP) surgical approaches. The PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials or observational studies that reported functional outcome data of patients with fracture of proximal humerus who were surgically treated using DS and DP approaches. A total of 14 studies were included in the present meta-analysis. The duration of surgery [min; weighted mean difference (WMD), -16.44; 95% CI, -(25.25-7.63)], amount of blood loss [ml; WMD, -57.99; 95% CI, -(102.74-13.23)] and time to bone union [weeks WMD, -1.66; 95% CI, -(2.30-1.02)] was comparatively lower in patients that underwent DS. There were no statistically significant differences in the pain and quality of life scores, range of movement and risk of complications between the DS and the DP groups. Patients in the DS group had improved shoulder function and constant shoulder score (CSS) at 3 months post-surgery (WMD, 6.36; 95% CI, 1.06-11.65). No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of CSS and disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand scores at 12 and 24 months post-operatively. The activity of daily living (ADL) score was significantly improved in the DS group at 3 (WMD, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.40-2.06), 6 (WMD, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.72-1.25) and 12 months (WMD, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.18-1.47) after the surgery. The present results suggested that DS and DP surgical approaches were associated with similar clinical outcomes. The DS approach was associated with certain perioperative benefits, as well as reduced time to bone union, improved shoulder function in the early postoperative period and improved ADL scores. These benefits may be considered while choosing between these two surgical approaches.
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.