Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42058403›Full record

ReviewVeterinary evidence

Comparing postoperative complications of internal versus external fixation for closed diaphyseal tibial fractures in cats.

Stephen Keith John, Jake Chitty

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Veterinary evidence. 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.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PICO question: In cats with closed diaphyseal tibial fractures, does internal fixation, when compared to external fixation, result in a lower postoperative complication rate? Clinical bottom line: Category of research: Treatment. Number and type of study designs reviewed: There were no publications that directly answered the PICO question. Strength of evidence: Zero. Outcomes reported: Both internal and external fixation are published techniques deployed in tibial fracture fixation in cats, however no study has directly compared the postoperative complications in these groups for closed diaphyseal tibial fractures. Conclusion: Given the lack of evidence to answer the PICO question, the veterinarian should consider their choice of stabilisation technique on the methods available and their personal experience. Both internal and external skeletal fixation (ESF) are published methods of feline tibial fracture fixation. A related study demonstrated that ESF has a high risk of complication for feline tibial fracture repair but given the absence of evidence for exclusively closed fracture types, this conclusion cannot be drawn for the PICO. How to apply this evidence in practice The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient's circumstances and owners' values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.

Indexed as

EXTERNAL FIXATIONFELINEFRACTUREINTERNAL FIXATIONORTHOPAEDIC SURGERYPOSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS

Identifiers

PMID42058403
PMCPMC13123730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.