ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Clinical outcomes of three treatment methods for humeral shaft fractures: a comparative study.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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.
- Ultrasound-guided radial nerve mapping during external fixation for elbow trauma: a case series of 13 patients.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of three techniques (nonoperation, external fixation, and open reduction and plate osteosynthesis) for the treatment of diaphyseal fractures of the humerus, thereby providing guidance for the selection of treatment methods. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 138 patients with humeral shaft fractures who received treatment at the Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hubei Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine between January 2021 and December 2024, all with complete follow-up data. The patients were divided into three groups based on their treatment methods: the nonoperative treatment (NOT) group, the external fixation (EF) group, and the open reduction and plate osteosynthesis (ORPO) group. In the NOT group, 46 patients received small splint fixation/plaster/functional bracing. There were 28 patients in the EF group and 64 patients in the ORPO group. The patients were followed up regularly at outpatient appointments or by telephone. The follow-up evaluations included measurements of fracture-healing time, fracture-healing rate, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and time to return to work after treatment. Furthermore, the clinical outcomes included the Constant shoulder score, the Mayo elbow score, and patient satisfaction at the last follow-up. Results: The mean follow-up durations for the NOT, EF, and ORPO groups were 21.4 ± 3.7, 20.1 ± 4.7, and 22.6 ± 5.4 months, respectively. The mean union times for the NOT, EF, and ORPO groups were 9.0 (8.0-11.25) months, 10.0 (9.0-12.0) months, and 12.0 (10.25-12.0) months, respectively; additionally, the mean union rates were 95.7%, 96.4%, and 96.9%, respectively. There were significant differences in union time among the three groups ( Conclusions: Within the limitations of this retrospective, non-randomized study, our findings suggest that all three treatment modalities achieve comparable fracture union rates and functional outcomes in humeral shaft fractures. Meanwhile, these results underscore the value of individualized treatment selection. In appropriately selected patients, NOT remains a viable and cost-effective option. But these findings should be validated in prospective trials.
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.