ArticleWorld journal of orthopedics2024
Comparative efficacy of proximal femoral nail
Article in World journal of orthopedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Surgeon's Experience on Implant Selection in the Management of Geriatric Unstable Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmong the most frequent hip fractures are trochanteric fractures, which usually occur from low-energy trauma like minor falls, especially in older people with osteoporotic bones.
aimTo evaluate the treatment efficacy of dynamic condylar screws (DCS) and proximal femoral nails (PFN) for unstable intertrochanteric fractures.
methodsTo find pertinent randomized controlled trials and retrospective observational studies comparing PFN with DCS for the management of unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures, a thorough search was carried out. For research studies published between January 1996 and April 2024, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were all searched. The complete texts of the papers were retrieved, vetted, and independently examined by two investigators. Disputes were settled by consensus, and any disagreements that persisted were arbitrated by a third author.
resultsThis study included six articles, comprising a total of 173 patients. Compared to the DCS, the PFN had a shorter operation time [mean difference (MD): -41.7 min, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): -63.04 to -20.35,
conclusionCompared to DCS, PFN offers shorter operative times, reduces the blood transfusions requirements, achieves higher closed reduction success, enables faster fracture healing, and lowers reoperation incidence.
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.