ArticleMedicine2025
Different treatment for humeral shaft fractures: A network meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intramedullary Nailing for Humeral Shaft Fractures: Functional Outcome Assessment Within a Cohort of 202 Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe main treatment methods for humeral shaft fractures include minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO), intramedullary nailing (IMN), open reduction and internal fixation (ORF), and non-operative treatment (NonOP). However, the optimal treatment plan remains unclear. This article utilizes a network meta-analysis to compare the therapeutic effects of MIPO, IMN, ORF, and NonOP for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures.
methodsWe searched electronic databases, including the PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science Databases, from inception to June 1, 2024. The "Risk of Bias Assessment" tool recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature. RevMan 5.4 software and R software with gemtc package was used for the graphical representation and data analysis of the network meta-analysis.
resultsA total of 23 randomized controlled trials were finally included. The results indicated that the efficacy of disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand score was significantly higher in the MIPO group than in the open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) group (weighted mean difference = 4.7, 95% confidence intervals, 1.8-7.75). IMN was associated with a decrease of the constant-Murley scores score than NonOP (weighted mean difference = -4.4, 95% confidence intervals, -8.7 to -0.068). IMN, MIPO, and ORIF was associated with a decrease of the fracture healing time than NonOP. The difference for nonunion rate and iatrogenic radial nerve injuries between any 2 groups was not statistically significant (P > .05).
conclusionThe evidence from current meta-analysis indicated that ORIF provides the best recovery effects for upper limb and shoulder joint function after the treatment of humeral shaft fractures, with the drawback of a relatively higher incidence of complications. To ensure the reliability of this study's results, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed in the future to verify these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.