SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Efficacy and safety of biological agents and physical therapies for delayed union or nonunion of fractures: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDelayed and nonunion fractures remain a significant clinical challenge in orthopedics. This study compared the effects of biologics and physical therapies for delayed or nonunion fractures.
methodsWe comprehensively searched and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating biologics and physical therapies for delayed or nonunion fractures; the outcomes included healing rate, healing time and adverse events. We ranked the interventions' therapeutic efficacy through data analysis.
resultsTwenty-seven RCTs (involving 1495 patients and 15 interventions) were included. For fracture healing rate, bone marrow aspirate (BMA) combined with autologous cancellous bone (ACB) exhibited significantly better efficacy than ACB alone (OR = 8.14, 95% CI: 1.69 to 39.32). SUCRA ranking revealed that BMA + ACB (96%), platelet-rich plasma (PRP) + ACB (77.3%) and bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) + ACB (70.5%) ranked among the top three interventions for fracture healing rate. For fracture healing time, LIPUS (SMD = -9.33, 95% CI: -12.94 to -5.73) and PRP + ACB (SMD = -2.43, 95% CI: -4.14 to -0.72) both significantly reduced the fracture healing time relative to ACB. For adverse events, BMA + ACB (OR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.59) and BMP (OR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.61) had the lowest risk of adverse events relative to ACB alone.
conclusionPreliminary evidence suggests that among currently available biologics and physical therapies, BMA combined with ACB may be associated with a higher fracture healing rate. LIPUS may help shorten the healing time in patients with mild delayed and nonunion fractures, while BMA combined with ACB potentially exhibits the lowest risk of adverse events. However, the quality of current evidence is low, and these findings require further validation through large-scale RCTs.
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.