SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of three internal fixation strategies for femoral neck fractures: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Currently, the most common internal fixation devices for femoral neck fractures are cannulated compression screws (CCS), dynamic hip screws (DHS), and femoral neck systems (FNS). However, no clear consensus exists regarding which device offers superior clinical efficacy and safety. Methods: We systematically searched three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) for clinical studies published from their inception until March 12, 2025. We included studies that directly compared the three internal fixation methods: FNS, DHS, and CCS. Outcomes of interest were analyzed using pairwise and network meta-analyses. Results: This network meta-analysis included 23 studies comprising 55,910 patients. FNS demonstrated a statistically significant higher Harris Hip Score (MD 3.79, 95% CI 1.44-6.13) and a shorter fracture healing time (MD -1.00 months, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.48) compared to CCS. Both FNS and CCS were associated with lower rates of femoral head necrosis than DHS. CCS was superior to both FNS and DHS, showing significantly less intraoperative blood loss. Conclusion: This network meta-analysis indicates that FNS may have advantages over CCS and DHS in fracture healing time and reduced risk of femoral head necrosis. Regarding Harris Hip Score, FNS was statistically superior to CCS, but the improvement did not reach the minimal clinically important difference, suggesting limited clinical meaningfulness. However, its definitive clinical superiority and optimal indications remain uncertain, necessitating further high-quality studies to validate its clinical value and guide practice. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420251014243, identifier CRD420251014243.
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.