Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40271474›Full record

ArticleCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2025

Comparative Analysis of Open and Closed Nasal Fractures in Trauma Settings: Mechanisms, Intent, Surgical Interventions, and Outcomes.

Ahmad K Alnemare

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ahmad K AlnemareOtolaryngology Department, College of Medicine, Majmaah University, Al-Majmaah 11952, Saudi Arabia; a.alnemare@mu.edu.sa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3484-6632

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to explore nasal fracture patterns, trauma mechanism and intent, treatment approaches, and mortality rates, offering insights for clinical practice and prevention in trauma settings.

designThis retrospective analysis was carried out using trauma data from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) for the years 2013 to 2016.

main outcome measuresTrauma mechanism and mortality rates between closed and open fractures were conducted.

resultsThis study involved 122,574 closed and 9704 open nasal fractures to elucidate demographic, hospital, and clinical characteristics. Significant risk factors for open nasal fractures included a higher injury severity score, self-inflicted intent, unintentional causes, and firearm mechanism compared to assault injuries.

conclusionsSignificant factors associated with open nasal fractures include injury severity, self-inflicted intent, trauma type, and firearm mechanisms, which notably increase the likelihood of open fractures. Findings highlight the need for targeted prevention, efficient resource allocation, and risk screening to enhance the management of complex facial traumas in the national trauma system.

Indexed as

facial traumainjury severitynasal bone fracturenational trauma data banktrauma mechanisms

Identifiers

PMID40271474
PMCPMC11995816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.