ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Clinical profiles and outcomes of different therapeutic protocols in elderly patients with trochanteric fractures: a descriptive study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To describe the clinical course and outcome profiles of elderly patients with trochanteric fractures, characterized by different baseline features, following different treatment pathways in clinical practice. Methods: This single-center retrospective descriptive study consecutively enrolled 309 elderly patients with trochanteric fractures admitted between January 2021 and December 2023. Based on the actual treatment received, patients were categorized into three groups: Group A (home-based recuperation, Results: Treatment selection closely matched patients' baseline health status. Patients in Group C were younger, had fewer comorbidities, and better baseline function; conversely, Group A patients were older, more frail, and had greater functional dependency. Group B patients' characteristics were intermediate. Complication profiles differed among the groups: Group C was predominantly associated with surgery-related complications; Group B exhibited a combination of fracture healing issues and immobilization-related medical complications; Group A was most notably characterized by impaired fracture healing. The one-year survival rate observed among patients in Group C was 95.42%, which was associated with their more favorable baseline health status. Rates of 91.75% and 83.95% were observed in Group B and Group A, respectively, reflecting the gradient in baseline frailty across groups. Functional recovery scores showed a parallel distribution. Conclusion: This study delineates the distribution of outcomes following different treatment pathways in elderly intertrochanteric fracture patients with varying health statuses. It provides a crucial reference for individualized clinical decision-making and prognosis expectation management in this heterogeneous patient population.
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.