Efficacy and safety of different fixation methods for unstable anterior pelvic ring fractures: a Bayesian network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of treatment methods for unstable pelvic anterior ring fractures, aiming to provide new ideas for their treatment. METHODS: We searched English databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, as well as Chinese databases CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang, with the search date up to September 10, 2024. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The effectiveness and safety of different surgical fixation methods were ranked according to probability levels. A total of 17 studies involving 1010 patients were included. RESULTS: Compared to external fixation (ExFix), plating, screws, and internal fixator (INFIX) showed better reduction quality. Patients using plates had the highest likelihood of achieving anatomical reduction. Screw fixation was the most effective method for postoperative functional recovery. The screw group had the lowest incidence of deep vein thrombosis in the lower limbs. The plate fixation group had the lowest incidence of lateral femoral cutaneous nerve injury. CONCLUSION: In the treatment of unstable pelvic anterior ring fractures, plating, screws, and INFIX fixation can be selected, while ExFix should only be used as a temporary fixation method.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".