Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41637596›Full record

ReviewBulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013)2025

Technology behind augmenting fracture healing.

Devan Mehta, Philipp Leucht

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Devan MehtaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York, New York.
Philipp Leucht

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractDespite bone's robust regenerative capacity, complications such as delayed union and nonunion affect 5-10% of fractures, with significant clinical and economic burdens. The rising incidence of fractures, particularly in an aging population, highlights the importance of optimizing fracture healing strategies. This review explores current therapies aimed at enhancing bone regeneration, focusing on 2 main categories: local biologic therapies and mechanical therapies. Local biologic treatments, including concentrated bone marrow aspirate, platelet-rich plasma, bone morphogenetic proteins, and platelet-derived growth factor, aim to stimulate osteogenesis at the fracture site. Therapies, such as electrical stimulation, low-intensity pulsed ultrasound, and extracorporeal shockwave therapy, are theorized to modify the mechanical environment to promote healing. Although these therapies show promise, variability in clinical outcomes emphasizes the need for further research to standardize protocols and refine treatment strategies. Overall, advancing our understanding of bone healing mechanisms will continue to drive innovation in fracture management, improving patient outcomes and reducing health care costs.

Indexed as

Bone RegenerationFracture HealingFractures, BoneAnimalsElectric Stimulation TherapyExtracorporeal Shockwave TherapyHumansOsteogenesisPlatelet-Rich PlasmaTreatment OutcomeUltrasonic Therapybiologicsbone graftfracture healinggrowth factorsnon-unionstem cellstrauma

Identifiers

PMID41637596
PMCPMC12742500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.