Comparing Intramedullary Nails Versus Dynamic Hip Screws in the Treatment of Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures on Post-operative Rehabilitation Outcomes:A Systematic Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Intertrochanteric hip fractures are treated by fixation with either an intramedullary (IM) Nail or Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS). It is unknown whether one surgery type has better post-operative rehabilitative outcomes for the hip fracture population. This systematic review aims to compare post-operative rehabilitation outcomes of intertrochanteric hip fractures treated via IM Nails versus DHS. Methods: We will conduct a systematic review following the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) format. A search strategy will be developed, and the following databases will be searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Two reviewers will perform a two-step screening process and data extraction of included studies. Any disagreement will be resolved with a discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias and the quality of the studies will also be assessed. A narrative synthesis will be used for the data analysis. Conclusion: This systematic review will provide evidence for orthopaedic surgeons and rehabilitation clinicians to further improve patient rehabilitation outcomes post-hip fracture surgery.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".