Early Surgery and Screw-Only Osteosyntheses in Minimally Invasive Treatment of Calcaneal Fractures-Risk or Benefit for Our Patients?

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.

1. Closed reduction and percutaneous screw fixation with early rehabilitation versus cast immobilization in minimally displaced sanders type II-III calcaneal fractures: a two-center retrospective comparison of treatment protocols.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026
   Article
2. In Vitro Experimental Study of BiofiligreeBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
   Article
3. Safe and Accurate Sustentaculum Screw Placement in Minimally Invasive Surgery for Calcaneal Fractures: The "Sustentaculum View" Technique.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026
   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

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as