Compression plating versus intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures—a meta-analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The choice of plates or intramedullary nails for operatively treated humeral shaft fractures remains controversial, since randomized controlled trials have lacked sufficient power. A meta-analysis of existing trials would improve inferences regarding the treatment effect. METHODS: We reviewed randomized trials in Medline, Cochrane and SciSearch, along with other sources of published randomized trials from 1969-2000. Of 215 citations identified, only 3 studies were included. RESULTS: The 3 studies (involving 155 patients) were pooled, since they were homogeneous (p > 0.1). Plate fixation gave a lower relative risk of reoperation than intramedullary nailing (RR = 0.26, 95% CI 0.007-0.9, p = 0.03). This translated to a risk reduction of 74% for reoperation when plate fixation was employed. Thus, 1 reoperation could be prevented for every 10 patients treated with plates. Plate fixation also reduced the risk of shoulder problems in comparison to intramedullary nails (RR = 0.10, 95% CI 0.03-0.4, p = 0.002). INTERPRETATION: Plate fixation of humeral shaft fractures may reduce the risk of reoperation and shoulder impingement. The cumulative evidence remains inconclusive, and a larger trial is needed in order to confirm these findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it