ArticleJournal of medical biochemistry2025
Comparative analysis of bone metabolism and inflammatory markers in tibiofibular fractures following closed reduction and fixation: A retrospective study.
Article in Journal of medical biochemistry, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of closed reduction and internal fixation (CRIF) versus closed reduction and external fixation (CREF) in treating tibiofibular fractures, focusing on their impact on bone metabolism and inflammatory responses. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 95 patients with tibiofibular fractures, categorised into the CRIF group (CRIFG) and the CREF group (CREFG). Clinical efficacy, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores, serum bone metabolism markers, serum inflammatory cytokines, Generic Quality of Life Inventory-74 (GQOLI-74) scores, and adverse reactions (AR) were compared between the groups. Results: The total clinical efficacy rates were 80.49% (33/41) in the CRIFG and 85.19% (46/54) in the CREFG (P>0.05). Compared to CRIFG, the CREFG group exhibited significantly lower VAS scores and higher GQOLI-74 scores across all dimensions. Additionally, the CREFG group showed increased levels of serum osteocalcin (BGP), bone alkaline phosphatase (BALP), and N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen (P1NP), along with decreased levels of type I collagen carboxy-terminal peptide b special sequence (b-CTX). Inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-1b, and tumour necrosis factor-a (TNF-a), were significantly lower in the CREFG group. The total AR rate was also lower in CREFG (18.52% vs. 31.71%, P<0.05). Conclusions: Compared to CRIF, CREF treatment is more effective in reducing pain, enhancing bone metabolism, alleviating inflammatory responses, and improving the overall quality of life (QoL) in patients with tibiofibular fractures.
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.