ArticleScientific reports2026
Biomechanical study on different internal fixation methods for treating Mayo type IIA olecranon fractures of the ulna.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this experiment is to compare the biomechanical strength of six distinct internal fixation techniques for Mayo type IIA olecranon fractures using biomechanical analysis. This study utilized tensile tests on artificial, shape-mimicking olecranon bones to assess their biomechanical properties. A tensile test was performed on the artificial, shape-mimicking olecranon bone at a 90° angle, with the tensile load applied at a rate of 2 mm/min until the test displacement reached 2 mm, at which point the test was halted. Throughout the test, the testing system was able to collect load and displacement data in real-time and simultaneously monitor the changes in the load-displacement relationship. The maximum loads for groups A-F were (75.34 ± 2.54), (85.53 ± 2.45), (106.57 ± 3.57), (115.21 ± 11.96), (92.76 ± 3.22), and (147.19 ± 4.29) N, respectively, and the stiffnesses were (33.46 ± 2.96), (39.29 ± 1.12), (51.07 ± 3.22), (53.76 ± 5.26), (40.99 ± 1.34), and (71.66 ± 1.77) N/mm, respectively. When the implantation depth of the Kirschner wires reached four times the standard deviation depth, its maximum load and stiffness performance were superior to those of the double cortical Kirschner wire tension band fixation.
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.