ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2026
The external fixator pin site care study: EPIC : A circular frame pin site care study for healthcare professionals and patients.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere is no evidence based consensus or protocol for the most effective pin site care regimen for patients treated with external fixators. Whilst the Royal College of Nursing recommends regular weekly pin site care, actual practice varies greatly across the UK and wider world. The aim of this study was to survey healthcare professionals and patients to ascertain the variety of pin site care regimens used across the UK.
methodsPatients and healthcare professionals from limb reconstruction units were surveyed on current pin site care approaches. Two surveys, exploring specifics of pin site care regimens were created with expertise from the British Limb Reconstruction Society Research committee and circulated to the membership and patients.
results60 healthcare practitioners responded along with 53 patients, demonstrating significant variation in pin site regimen in both cleaning frequency, solution used and dressing type applied. No consensus was noted nationally, between regions / hospitals, or even in some cases within units.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates a lack of evidence base and variation in pin site practice across the NHS. We recommend a future multicentre trial to inform new guidance on the most clinical and cost-effective pin site care regime.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42257915What 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.