SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Defining orthoplastic limb salvage centers: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLimb salvage centers have increased in number over time, but lack standardized defining criteria. This systematic review aimed to assess organizational features of limb salvage centers and determine whether orthoplastic centers, in comparison to vascular limb salvage centers, represent a distinct care model that may benefit from standardization.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of publications related to limb salvage centers by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from their inception through 2024. We quantified binary data extraction as a reporting score of 26 organizational features across six structural care domains for limb salvage centers, based on a validated quality measurement framework. Organizational features differentiating distinct center types were identified to establish a quality framework for orthoplastic centers. Statistical comparisons between center types were performed using appropriate tests (p < 0.05).
resultsOf 118 included studies, orthoplastic (n = 43) and vascular (n = 48) centers represented 77% of all studies. Recent increases in orthoplastic publications show substantial variability in organizational features. Orthoplastic center literature more frequently reported plastic surgery consultation criteria (p < 0.001), surgical outcomes (p < 0.001), and centralized network integration (p ≤ 0.006), highlighting acute reconstructive approaches. Vascular center studies documented significantly more organizational team features (p < 0.001) and quality systems (p = 0.033), reflecting established care frameworks for chronic disease management. Six organizational features characterized orthoplastic centers with > 70% prevalence, providing a benchmark framework with standardization priorities.
conclusionOrthoplastic limb salvage centers demonstrate distinct care paradigms that benefit from standardization. Our findings suggest structural benchmarks to support the need for standardized development of orthoplastic limb salvage centers.
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.