ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2025
Utilization and associated factors of traditional bone setting service among patients with musculoskeletal injuries in Northeast Ethiopia.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditional bone setting is widely practiced in Ethiopia, despite the lack of standardized training and associated risks. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of traditional bone setting service utilization and associated factors among trauma patients at Woldia Comprehensive Specialized Hospital. Methods: An institution-based cross-sectional study was conducted between April 9 and May 18, 2024. A total of 420 participants were selected using a consecutive sampling technique. Binary and multiple logistic regressions were used to assess the association between the independent variables and traditional bone setting service utilization. Results: A total of 420 patients with orthopedic injuries participated in the study. The prevalence of traditional bone setting utilization was 55.2% (95% CI: 50.44, 59.95). In a multivariable regression model, rural residency (AOR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.02, 2.39), low annual income (<21,000 Birr) (AOR = 4.06, 95% CI: 1.97, 8.37), use of health insurance (AOR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.95), and extremity trauma (AOR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.11, 2.99) were significantly associated with traditional bone setting utilization. Conclusion: Traditional bone setting utilization is common among rural, poor, and uninsured patients. Further research may be important to ensure its appropriate utilization.
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.