ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2024
Anatomical Posterior Acetabular Plate Versus Conventional Reconstruction Plates for Acetabular Posterior Wall Fractures: A Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reconstruction of comminuted posterior acetabular wall fractures using the outer table of the anterior iliac tubercle: anatomical matching and a clinical pilot study.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Biomechanical advantages of double-column bridging plate-augmented PFNA for complex subtrochanteric femoral fractures: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- The PEARL Score for Predicting Postoperative Complication Risk in Patients with Pelvic and Acetabular Fractures: Development of a Novel Comprehensive Risk Scoring System.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Technical note: novel utilization of an H-plate for the treatment of posterior wall components of acetabular fractures.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.