ArticleMalaysian orthopaedic journal2026
Treating Intertrochanteric Fracture by Short and Long Cephalomedullary Nail: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in Malaysian orthopaedic journal, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intertrochanteric femur fracture is a common injury, and cephalomedullary nailing has become a popular surgical technique for the treatment of these types of fracture patterns. Various nail implant designs exist, including both short and long versions. The initial design of the implant was a short cephalomedullary nail, but it was associated with problems such as increased hip pain and periprosthetic fracture. To address these issues, a longer nail was developed. In this review, we determine the advantage of treating the intertrochanteric fracture using long and short intramedullary nails. We also compared the outcomes among the different types of nail manufacturers. All trials comparing long and short nails were included. We searched Google Scholar, PubMed, central Cochrane, Clinic Trials and Science Direct. Two authors screened and reviewed studies independently and collected data using fixed-effect models. The results were presented as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) at 95% confidence intervals (CI). Twenty trials were included with a total of 3470 patients. The results showed that the short nail group had a shorter operative time, less blood loss and hip pain, lower transfusion and peri-implant fracture rate. Functional outcomes were favourable for both nail types, though scores were slightly better in the long nail group. There was no significant difference in mortality, complication rates, or reoperation rates between the two groups.
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.