ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Effectiveness of the Proximal Femoral Nail and Dynamic Hip Screw Fixation in Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the clinical effectiveness of proximal femoral nail (PFN) versus dynamic hip screw (DHS) fixation in patients with intertrochanteric femur fractures. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases from January 2010 to September 2025, identifying studies that directly compared PFN and DHS fixation outcomes. Thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising randomized controlled trials, prospective cohorts, and retrospective comparative studies from diverse geographic regions. The pooled analysis demonstrated several significant advantages favoring PFN fixation. Operative time was significantly shorter with PFN compared to DHS (mean difference (MD): -12.30 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI): -17.33 to -7.28), while intraoperative blood loss was substantially lower (MD: -115.01 mL, 95% CI: -132.05 to -97.98). Patients treated with PFN achieved full weight-bearing significantly earlier than those receiving DHS. Safety outcomes showed PFN was associated with significantly lower total complication rates (risk ratio (RR): 0.46, 95% CI: 0.31-0.68) and reduced infection risk. However, no significant differences were observed between groups regarding implant failure rates, mortality, or long-term functional outcomes, as measured by the Harris Hip Score. High heterogeneity was noted across most outcomes, reflecting variations in study populations and methodologies. These findings suggest that PFN offers superior perioperative outcomes and early recovery advantages compared to DHS, while maintaining comparable long-term functional results and survival rates in patients with intertrochanteric femur 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.