ArticleEFORT open reviews2025
One-year mortality rates of fragility fractures of the pelvis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fragility fractures of the pelvis in the elderly: protocol for an international prospective multicentre observational cohort study.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- Emerging era of robotics and artificial intelligence in orthopaedic trauma surgery.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2026Article
- Fragility fractures of the pelvis and long-term outcomes among older adults with osteoporosis: a real-world cohort study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
- Transiliac-Transsacral Screw Provides Good Outcomes for Stabilizing Unstable Fragility Fracture of the Pelvis: A Retrospective Case Series.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Impact of CT Imaging on the Diagnosis of Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis: An Observational Prospective Multicenter Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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
Purpose: This study investigates the 1-year mortality of fragility fractures of the pelvis (FFP) in patients categorized under this system and treated with surgery or conservative methods, aiming to assess the algorithm's effectiveness. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for English studies on the 1-year mortality of FFP, with no publication date restrictions. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled 1-year mortality rates were calculated using random-effects models. In addition, if applicable, odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were employed. PRISMA guidelines were followed for reporting, and the study was registered with PROSPERO. Results: Analysis of 22 studies encompassing 3,265 patients with FFP revealed a concerning overall 1-year mortality rate of 15.5%. Mortality varied by fracture type, with FFP IV having the lowest rate (7.5%) and FFP III having the highest (17.0%). All studies concurred on conservative treatment for FFP I. For other fracture types, mortality rates differed between conservative and surgical approaches. Conservative treatment resulted in rates of 14.9, 21.8, and 5.1% for FFP II, III, and IV, respectively. Conversely, surgical treatment yielded mortality rates of 16.8, 19.5, and 24.2% for FFP II, III, and IV, respectively. Conclusion: Fragility fractures of the pelvis have high mortality, especially in FFP III. Conservative treatment may be suitable for FFP I, while surgery might be better for FFP III. The rarity of FFP IV fractures limits conclusions, and FFP II fractures lack a clear treatment consensus. Further research is needed to optimize management for these fracture types.
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.