ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Are ipsilateral proximal femur and pubic rami fractures mutually exclusive in acute trauma?
Article in Skeletal radiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether proximal femur and pubic rami fractures are mutually exclusive in acute trauma.
methodsPelvic/hip radiographs of consecutive adult patients presenting to ER with acute trauma at a tertiary, university hospital between January 1 and December 31, 2020, were retrospectively reviewed for proximal femur and/or pubic ramus fractures. The number of fractures, fracture location, age and gender were recorded. Cases with concomitant pubic rami and proximal femoral fractures were identified. Electronic records confirmed the history of trauma and mechanism of injury (low energy or high energy). Continuous data variables were summarized using descriptive statistics of mean, range and standard deviation. Categorical variables were summarized as count and percentages with proportions compared using Chi-square test.
resultsA total of 1967 patients were included (826 male, 1141 female; mean age 69 years [range 18-119, SD 22]). There were 633 fractures in 624 patients, 125 pubic ramus (19.7% of total, 68.8% females) and 508 proximal femur (80.3% of total, 67.9% females). Injury mechanism was predominantly low energy for both pubic ramus (53%) and proximal femur (91%) fractures. The incidence of concomitant pubic ramus and proximal femur fractures was 1.4% (9/624). Of these 9 cases, two subgroups emerged: (1) 3 middle-aged patients of age 44-62 years, with high energy mechanism, all with subtrochanteric proximal femur fracture, and (2) 6 elderly patients, all age > 90 years, with low energy mechanism, with femoral neck or intertrochanteric proximal femur fracture.
conclusionProximal femur and pubic ramus fractures are not mutually exclusive, although their coexistence is rare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42839176What 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.