SynthesisInternational wound journal2023
A meta-analysis comparing the effects of cemented and uncemented prostheses on wound infection and pain in patients with femoral neck fractures.
Synthesis in International wound journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Health-Related Quality of Life for Cemented Versus Uncemented Hemiarthroplasty in Elderly Patients With Femoral Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- A meta-analysis comparing the effects of cemented and uncemented prostheses on wound infection and pain in patients with femoral neck fractures.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- RETRACTION: A Meta-Analysis Comparing the Effects of Cemented and Uncemented Prostheses on Wound Infection and Pain in Patients With Femoral Neck Fractures.International wound journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-03-06Compromised Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To providing evidence-based recommendations for surgery in patients with femoral neck fractures, a meta-analysis was conducted to comprehensively evaluate the effects of cemented and uncemented prostheses on postoperative surgical site wound infection and pain in these patients. Relevant studies on the use of cemented prostheses in femoral neck fractures were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Ovid, CNKI, and Wanfang databases from the time of their establishment until March 2023. Two authors independently screened and extracted data from the included and excluded literature according to predetermined criteria. Review Manager 5.4 software was used to perform meta-analyses on the collected data. A total of 27 articles comprising 34 210 patients (24 646 cases in the cemented group and 9564 cases in the uncemented group) were included in the final analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with the uncemented group, cemented prostheses significantly reduced the incidence of surgical site wound infections (odds ratio [OR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-0.88, p < 0.001) and relieved surgical site wound pain (standardised mean difference: -0.76, 95% CI: -1.12-0.40, p < 0.001), but did not reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers after surgery (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.20-1.26, p = 0.140). Therefore, existing evidence suggests that the use of cemented prostheses in femoral neck fracture surgery can significantly reduce the incidence of surgical site wound infections and relieve surgical site wound pain, which is worthy of clinical recommendation.
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.