ArticleEFORT open reviews2026
Rigid locked antegrade versus retrograde intramedullary nailing in treating acute humeral shaft fractures: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal intramedullary nailing (IMN) strategy for humeral shaft fractures (HSFs): both antegrade IMN (aIMN) and retrograde IMN (rIMN) are used. We aim to compare both strategies in terms of outcomes and complications. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for articles in English or Spanish from inception to Nov 23, 2023. All studies reporting on primary treatment of acute HSFs (OTA/AO 12A, 12B, and 12C) with rigid locked IMN, in patients aged 16 years or older, were analyzed. Two independent reviewers screened studies for eligibility, performed data extraction, and used RoB 2, ROBINS-I and JBI's critical appraisal tools to assess bias of the included studies. Stata 18.0 software for data analysis was used. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore heterogeneity. We applied GRADE to appraise our evidence. Results: Nine studies involving 565 fractures were included. aIMN showed significantly faster operative time than rIMN (MD = -14.40 min (95% CI: -17.75 to -11.04); I 2 = 0%; P < 0.001), and rIMN showed significantly higher odds of intraoperative fractures than aIMN (RD = 0.05% (95% CI: -0.08% to -0.02%); I 2 = 0%; P < 0.005). In contrast, aIMN showed significantly higher odds of worse shoulder function and pain complaints and worse Neer scores than rIMN (P = 0.02, P = 0.03 and P = 0.02, respectively). Conclusions: Compared with rIMN, aIMN demonstrated a significantly faster operative time and lower rates of intraoperative fractures. Conversely, rIMN demonstrated lower rates of shoulder pain complaints and better shoulder function and Neer score outcomes.
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.