ArticleOTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma2025
The Impact of National Orthopaedic Fracture Registries: A Systematic Review.
Article in OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma, 2025. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Large-scale registry data efforts are common in orthopaedic surgery; however, there is wide variation between registries and little known about registry impact. The purpose of this study was to assess the publication or "scholarly" impact of current national trauma/fracture registries. Methods: A search was executed to identify potential national and international trauma/fracture registries and create a comprehensive list of registries. Thirty-four relevant national registries were identified. Searches were executed to identify any published articles published by or affiliated with the selected registries. Over 13,000 abstracts were screened by at least 2 reviewers. The full text of 650 articles were screened by at least 2 reviewers, and data were extracted from 383 articles. Citations were excluded if they were reviews and meta-analyses; referencing non-trauma-specific, insurance, institutional, or state-wide databases; describing facial, spine, or rib trauma; reporting nonregistry data; and did not report on fracture patients. Data were collected at the article level and registry level. Results: The median number of articles per registry was 3.5 (range: 1-66) with a median impact factor of 3.2 (range per registry: 1.4-11.0). The National Hip Fracture Database (United Kingdom) had the highest publication rate per year of any registry (3.9). Twenty-four percent of registries had a publication rate of greater than 1 article per year, whereas only 8.8% had a publication rate over 2 per year. Only 8 registries had 10 or more publications in total. The National Trauma Data Bank (United States) had the highest number of fracture-specific publications overall (66) and an average citation rate of 29 per publication. The National Hip Fracture Database had the second highest number of article (62) with an average citation per article of 23.6. Conclusion: With the exception of a few registries, most national trauma/fracture registries have low yearly publication and citation rates. Researchers must consider the utility of resources needed to sustain registry efforts in the context of the impact of registry data. Future studies will seek to identify salient features of the highest impact registries.
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.