SynthesisPloS one2025
Short versus long cephalomedullary nails for intertrochanteric femur fractures: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Association of Long Versus Standard-Length Cephalomedullary Nail Constructs with Posterior Sagging in Intertrochanteric Fractures with Posteromedial Comminution: A Retrospective Comparative Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of intramedullary nail length on the biomechanical performance of internal fixation for subtrochanteric femoral fractures.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Anteromedial cortical support in intertrochanteric fractures: radiographic and clinical validation in a Latin American cohort.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Article
- Short versus long proximal femoral nail anti-rotation-II (PFNA-II) in the management of unstable intertrochanteric fractures.International journal of burns and trauma · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of short cephalomedullary nails(CMN) versus long CMN in patients with intertrochanteric femur fractures(IFFs).
methodsThe PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched for relevant publications until July 2024. All randomized controlled studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of short CMN versus long CMN in patients with IFFs were included. We estimated the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes.
resultsA total of 7 studies with 658 patients were included in this analysis. There was no significant difference between the short CMN group and the long CMN group in Harris hip score, mortality within 1-year, overall complication rates, or reoperation rates. However, durations of surgery were significantly lower in the short CMN group compared to the long CMN group (MD: ‒21.83 minutes, 95% CI: ‒27.54 minutes, ‒16.13 minutes), along with significantly lower intraoperative blood loss (MD: ‒136.70 mL, 95% CI: ‒139.06 mL, ‒134.34 mL) and tip-apex distance (MD: ‒0.47 cm, 95% CI: ‒0.63 cm, ‒0.31 cm). There was also no significant difference in peri-implant fracture or lengths of hospital stays.
conclusionsShort CMN are associated with shorter duration of surgery, reduced tip-apex distance, and lower intraoperative blood loss compared to long CMN for the fixation of IFFs. However, there were no significant differences in functional outcomes, overall complication rates, reoperation rates, mortality within one year, peri-implant fracture, or lengths of hospital stays.
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.