ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Agreement rate of surgically treated sacral fractures with the recommendations proposed by the sacral AOSpine Injury Score.
Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Several sacral fracture classifications addressed different characteristics of these injuries to help identify neurological risk and pelvic or spinopelvic instability. The AOSpine sacral injury classification system established treatment recommendations. However, it is important to assess its use in clinical practice. Objectives: To assess whether the surgical indication for sacral fractures in this series, based on the classifications proposed by Denis, Roy-Camille, Isler, and Rommens, achieved >70% agreement with the AOSpine Injury Score (AOSIS) recommendation. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study based on the prospectively collected data was performed. Consecutive patients with sacral fractures that were treated surgically were evaluated. An agreement percentage was established between AOSIS and the surgical indications in this series. The AOSpine classification reliability (kappa coefficient [κ]) was evaluated. Results: Out of 16 patients, 12 (75%) patients matched the AOSIS recommendations; 66.7% of Type B and 76.9% of Type C injuries. The AOSIS mean was 5.75 (standard deviation: 2.84; Conclusions: The AOSIS algorithm was considered satisfactory for guiding surgical decision-making in sacral fractures. The AOSIS score underestimates fragility fractures of the sacrum. The score for the M2 modifier is zero, resulting in a recommendation for conservative treatment for C0M2 fractures, which is controversial.
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.