ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
The Effectiveness of Three-Dimensional Osteosynthesis Plates versus Conventional Plates for the Treatment of Skeletal Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient's Customized Prosthesis would be a Better Alternative Choice than Macro-plate as a Reconstruction Method in Resected Mandible: A Case Report.World journal of plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Novel Customizable Fracture Fixation Technique vs. Conventional Metal Locking Plate: An Exploratory Comparative Study of Fixation Stability in an Experimental In Vivo Ovine Bilateral Phalangeal Fracture Model.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Editorial: Updates and Challenges in Maxillofacial Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Customized osteosynthesis plates for multi-species fractures using ICP and TPS: an integrated CT imaging and computational modeling framework.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Comparison of reconstruction plates and miniplates in mandibular defect reconstruction with free iliac flap.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the difference between preformed anatomically shaped osteosynthesis plates and patient-specific implants versus conventional flat plates for the treatment of skeletal fractures in terms of anatomical reduction, operation time, approach, patient outcomes, and complications. MATERIAL AND
methodsMEDLINE (1950 to February 2023), EMBASE (1966 to February 2023), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception to February 2023) databases were searched. Eligible studies were randomised clinical trials, prospective controlled clinical trials, and prospective and retrospective cohort studies (
resultsIn total, 21 out of the 5181 primarily selected articles matched the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in operation time in favour of the preformed anatomical plates and patient-specific implants versus conventional plates. Significant differences in operation time were found for the orbital (95% CI: -50.70-7.49,
conclusionsThis systematic review showed a significant mean difference in surgery time favouring the use of preformed anatomical plates and patient-specific implants for orbital, upper, and lower limb extremity fractures. Additionally, preformed anatomical plates and patient-specific implants in the lower limb group result in a significantly higher rate of anatomical reduction versus conventional flat plates.
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.