ArticleOTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma2026
Treatment-center variations in open versus closed reduction for nonelderly femoral neck fractures.
Article in OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine if variation in the practice of open vs closed reduction of femoral neck fractures (FNFs) for nonelderly adults at the aggregate treatment center level can be explained by patient and fracture characteristics. Methods: Design: Multicenter retrospective cohort. Setting: Twenty-five North American Level 1 Trauma Centers. Patient Selection Criteria: Skeletally mature patients between the ages of 18 and 60 years with operative repair of FNFs. Outcome Measures and Comparisons: The propensity for treatment with open vs closed reduction was estimated given patient and fracture characteristics from all patients included in the study. Predicted probabilities of open reduction were averaged for each treatment center and used to assess variation in each centers' proportion of open reductions. Logistic models of treatment approach were fit with and without indicator variables for treatment centers to test the impact of exclusion of treatment center using a likelihood ratio test. Results: The sample included 818 patients with a mean age of 43.9 (SD 11.3), 56.7% of patients were male, and 37.0% presented with a Pauwels angle >50°. Open reduction was performed more frequently for 225/352 (63.9%) displaced FNFs compared with 131/466 (28.1%) nondisplaced FNFs ( Conclusions: The decision to perform an open vs closed reduction differed significantly compared with that which would have been predicted based on patient characteristics and case-mix at several treatment centers. This suggests that external factors beyond case-mix may bias operative decision making at a treatment center level. Level of Evidence: Level III Therapeutic.
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.