Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37575865›Full record

ReviewCureus2023

A Systematic Review of Sacral Insufficiency Fractures: Treatment Modalities and Outcomes.

Praise Briggs, Samuel W King, Tim Staniland, Shivkumar Gopal, Rajesh Shah, Mukai Chimutengwende-Gordon

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07493564 (Sacroplasty for Sacral Insufficiency Fractures), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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.

NCT07493564 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2027, after this paper: background citation

Sacroplasty for Sacral Insufficiency Fractures: a Randomised Controlled Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorHull University Teaching Hospitals NHS TrustRan2027 to 2030Enrolled78ConditionsSacral Fracture, Osteoporotic FractureArmsPercutaneous Sacroplasty, Standard conservative management
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Praise BriggsTrauma and Orthopaedics, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Kingston upon Hull, GBR.
Samuel W KingTrauma and Orthopaedics, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, GBR.
Tim StanilandKnowledge and Library Services, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Kingston upon Hull, GBR.
Shivkumar GopalPelvic and Hip Orthopaedic Surgery, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Kingston upon Hull, GBR.
Rajesh ShahPelvic and Spinal Orthopaedic Surgery, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Kingston upon Hull, GBR.
Mukai Chimutengwende-GordonPelvic Orthopaedic Surgery, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Kingston upon Hull, GBR.
University of Hull · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sacral insufficiency fractures can be managed conservatively, by surgical fixation or by sacroplasty. This systematic review compared the outcomes of different treatment modalities to ascertain the best. Studies included in this systematic review were those with sacral insufficiency fracture in elderly patients with some measure of outcomes reported. Fractures due to high-energy trauma or malignancy or in non-elderly patients were excluded. The review was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception to January 6, 2022, yielding a total of 4299 papers of which 35 were eligible for inclusion. Pain reduction following sacroplasty (Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) difference 5.83, SD 1.14, n = 901) was superior compared with conservative management (VAS difference 3.7, SD 2.71, n = 65) (p <0.0001) and surgical fixation (with screws/rods +/- cement augmentation; VAS difference 4.1, SD 1.106, n = 154) (p< 0.001). There was no significant difference between pain relief following screw fixation and after conservative management (p = 0.1216). Hospital stay duration was shorter following sacroplasty (4.1 days )SD 3.9)) versus fixation (10.3 days (SD 5.59)) (p= 0.0001). Available evidence points to sacroplasty resulting in better pain relief and shorter hospital stay than other treatment options.

Indexed as

conservative managementoutcomessacral insufficiency fracturesacroplastyscrew fixationsurgical fixationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37575865
PMCPMC10415627
OpenAlexW4384038185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.