MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283694018 · doi:10.1155/2022/5759233

Efficacy and Safety Evaluation of Intramedullary Nail and Locking Compression Plate in the Treatment of Humeral Shaft Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4283694018 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yong Hu, Tianhui Wu, Baolin Li, Yongxiang Huang, Changqiang Huang, Yilin Luo

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryJadad scaleMeta-analysisConfidence intervalElbowIntramedullary rodRelative riskSurgeryFunnel plotPublication biasInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. The surgical treatment scheme of humeral shaft fracture is still controversial with no consensus reached. This meta-analysis was aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of intramedullary nail (IMN) and locking compression plate (LCP) in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Methods. PubMed, Medline, Embase, Ovid, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, Clinical Trials, and Chinese databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure Project, Wanfang database, and China biomedical abstracts database, were used to search the literature. Review Manager software was employed for statistical analysis and establishing forest and funnel maps. Categorical variables were measured by relative risk (RR), and standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to measure continuous variables. 95% confidence intervals were used for each variable. The modified Jadad scale, Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and Cochrane’s bias risk tools were used to evaluate the bias and risk of eligible studies. Results. A total of 14 studies were included in the analysis with a total of 903 patients with humeral shaft fracture. Significant differences with regard to operation time ( <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mtext>Std</a:mtext> <a:mo>=</a:mo> <a:mo>−</a:mo> <a:mn>1.18</a:mn> </a:math> , 95% CI: -2.14, -0.22, <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mi>Z</c:mi> <c:mo>=</c:mo> <c:mn>2.41</c:mn> </c:math> , <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>P</e:mi> <e:mo>=</e:mo> <e:mn>0.02</e:mn> </e:math> ), blood loss ( <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"> <g:mtext>Std</g:mtext> <g:mo>=</g:mo> <g:mo>−</g:mo> <g:mn>2.97</g:mn> </g:math> , 95% CI: -4.32, -1.63, <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"> <i:mi>Z</i:mi> <i:mo>=</i:mo> <i:mn>4.34</i:mn> </i:math> , <k:math xmlns:k="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M6"> <k:mi>P</k:mi> <k:mo>&lt;</k:mo> <k:mn>0.001</k:mn> </k:math> ), and postoperative infection rate ( <m:math xmlns:m="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M7"> <m:mtext>RR</m:mtext> <m:mo>=</m:mo> <m:mn>0.32</m:mn> </m:math> , 95% CI: -0.15, 0.68, <o:math xmlns:o="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M8"> <o:mi>Z</o:mi> <o:mo>=</o:mo> <o:mn>2.98</o:mn> </o:math> , <q:math xmlns:q="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M9"> <q:mi>P</q:mi> <q:mo>=</q:mo> <q:mn>0.003</q:mn> </q:math> ) were noted between the IMN group and LCP group. In addition, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (ASES) score ( <s:math xmlns:s="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M10"> <s:mtext>Std</s:mtext> <s:mo>=</s:mo> <s:mo>−</s:mo> <s:mn>0.22</s:mn> </s:math> , 95% CI: -0.44, 0.01, <u:math xmlns:u="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M11"> <u:mi>Z</u:mi> <u:mo>=</u:mo> <u:mn>2.08</u:mn> </u:math> , <w:math xmlns:w="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M12"> <w:mi>P</w:mi> <w:mo>=</w:mo> <w:mn>0.04</w:mn> </w:math> ) and the rate of shoulder and elbow function limitation ( <y:math xmlns:y="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M13"> <y:mtext>RR</y:mtext> <y:mo>=</y:mo> <y:mn>1.88</y:mn> </y:math> , 95% CI: 1.06, 3.33, <ab:math xmlns:ab="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M14"> <ab:mi>Z</ab:mi> <ab:mo>=</ab:mo> <ab:mn>2.17</ab:mn> </ab:math> , <cb:math xmlns:cb="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M15"> <cb:mi>P</cb:mi> <cb:mo>=</cb:mo> <cb:mn>0.03</cb:mn> </cb:math> ) between the 2 groups were also statistically significant. There were no significant differences in the rate of radial nerve injury, nonunion, delayed healing, and secondary operation between the two groups. Conclusion. IMN is superior than the LCP in terms of the operation time, intraoperative bleeding, and postoperative infection, suggesting its superiority in the humeral shaft fracture fixation. However, IMN is inferior to LCP in ASES score and shoulder elbow function limitation rate, indicating poor early postoperative functional recovery. More studies are required to evaluate and analyze the clinical efficacy between IMN and LCP regarding long-term function after artificial graft removal.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputational and Mathematical Methods in MedicineSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207