SynthesisMedicine2025
Comparison of the femoral neck system and dynamic hip screw for femoral neck fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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.
- [Research progress in treatment of Garden typeZhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRecently, the femoral neck system (FNS) has been introduced as a novel fixation device, especially for femoral neck fracture (FNF); however, whether it can replace the widely used dynamic hip screw (DHS) remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the perioperative characteristics and clinical outcomes of FNS and DHS in the treatment of FNF.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA-P guidelines. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to December 10, 2024. Comparative studies evaluating DHS and FNS for FNF were included. Data were extracted on perioperative surgical parameters, postoperative complications, and functional outcomes. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model.
resultsEight studies involving 726 patients were included. FNS was associated with significantly shorter operative time (mean difference: -19.68 minutes; 95% CI: -26.36 to - 13.00; P < .001) and lower intraoperative blood loss (mean difference: -16.89 mL; 95% CI: -20.88 to -12.90; P < .001). There was no significant difference between FNS and DHS in terms of femoral neck shortening, nonunion, or osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Functional outcomes measured by Harris hip score were significantly better in the FNS group (mean difference: -1.40; 95% CI: -2.57 to -0.23; P = .02).
conclusionFNS demonstrated shorter operative time, reduced blood loss, and improved functional outcomes compared to DHS, with comparable complication rates. These findings suggest that FNS may serve as a viable alternative to DHS for the treatment of FNFs.
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.