ArticleBMJ open2025
Efficacy and safety of different fixation methods for acute syndesmosis injuries: protocol for a network meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies.
Article in BMJ open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAcute unstable syndesmosis injuries require accurate reduction and stable fixation to improve short-term and long-term outcomes. Several different fixation methods have been established for acute syndesmosis injuries, each with pros and cons. Although some meta-analyses have reported better outcomes with suture-buttons than screws, the optimal fixation method remains uncertain because of heterogeneous study results and limited comparisons of emerging techniques. This network meta-analysis combining randomised and observational studies aims to determine the optimal fixation method for acute syndesmosis injuries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Five electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data and Embase) will be comprehensively searched from their inception through 1 June 2025 for randomised and observational studies, published in English or Chinese, that compared two or more fixation methods for acute syndesmosis injuries. Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be used for selection based on patient, intervention, comparison, outcome and study standards. Risk of bias will be evaluated by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2 and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, respectively. Conventional pairwise meta-analyses with the DerSimonian-Laird random effects model will be conducted first, followed by network meta-analyses with a three-level Bayesian hierarchical model. The outcome measures include functional outcomes, radiological indicators and postoperative complications. Data analysis will be conducted using Review Manager 5.3 and R 4.1.2. Heterogeneity, transitivity and inconsistency tests, subgroup and sensitivity analyses and publication bias will also be assessed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required because all the data will be collected from published research. The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: INPLASY202480027.
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.