MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017222869 · doi:10.1097/bot.0b013e318162f67f

Gamma Nails Revisited: Gamma Nails Versus Compression Hip Screws in the Management of Intertrochanteric Fractures of the Hip: A Meta-Analysis

2009· review· en· W2017222869 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisOrthopedic surgeryHip fractureRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalFemoral headSurgeryNail (fastener)DentistryOsteoporosisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Concerns about the Gamma nail have largely been fueled by early randomized trials and meta-analyses suggesting an increased risk of subsequent femoral shaft fractures when compared with compression hip screws. Whereas meta-analyses favor compression hip screws over first-generation Gamma nails, little is known as to whether the newer Gamma nail designs and the improved learning curve associated with the implants have reduced the risk of femoral shaft fracture. The current meta-analysis aimed to explore the effects of time and Gamma Nail design on the risks of femoral shaft fracture after treatment of extracapsular hip fractures. METHODS: We searched computerized databases (Medline, Cochrane, and SciSearch) for published randomized clinical trials from 1969 to 2002, and we identified additional studies through hand searches of major orthopedic journals, bibliographies of major orthopedic texts, and personal files. Two investigators independently graded study quality and abstracted relevant data. We abstracted information on subsequent femoral shaft fracture rates from studies. We pooled data using a random-effects model and tested for heterogeneity using the I test. We conducted sensitivity analyses by date and by generation of the Gamma nail. We further conducted a cumulative meta-analysis to explore the treatment effect over time. RESULTS: We identified 25 relevant randomized trials from 1991 to 2005. In earlier studies (N = 1585 patients), Gamma nails increased the risk of femoral shaft fracture 4.5 times compared with a compression hip screw (95% confidence interval: 1.78-11.36, P = 0.0014, I(2) = 0%). However, among the most recent studies (2000-2005), Gamma nails did not significantly increase femoral shaft fracture risk (relative risk = 1.65, 95% confidence interval: 0.50-5.44, P = 0.41, I(2) = 0%). The most recent study (2005) found no difference in femoral fracture rates (relative risk = 1.03, 95% confidence interval = 0.06-16.2, P = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis of randomized trials suggests that previous concerns about increased femoral shaft fracture risk with Gamma nails have been resolved with improved implant design and improved learning curves with the device. Earlier meta-analyses and randomized trials should be interpreted with caution in light of more recent evidence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.010
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it