ReviewCureus2024
Healing of Humerus Non-union Fracture Using Recombinant Human Bone Morphogenetic Protein With Bone Graft Compared to Bone Graft Alone: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-union fractures of the humerus present significant challenges in orthopedic surgery, often requiring advanced treatments to achieve successful bone healing. The study aimed to compare the use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (rhBMP) with bone grafts versus bone grafts alone for treating humerus non-union fractures with regard to healing rate and complications. Six databases, PubMed, ScienceDirect, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, were searched for relevant literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and studies were selected according to the set eligibility criteria. Quality assessment was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4 (2020, The Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom) was utilized for meta-analysis at a significance level of 0.01. Eighteen research papers were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Due to the unavailability of RCTs, data from the two studies were combined. The pooled data from 16 studies for effectiveness regarding union achieved for rhBMP with bone graft versus bone graft alone was 0.65 (95%CI: 0.07-6.38,
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.