↓ Skip to main content

Intramedullary nailing versus plating for distal tibia fractures without articular involvement: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intramedullary nailing versus plating for distal tibia fractures without articular involvement: a meta-analysis
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13018-015-0217-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhi Mao, Guoqi Wang, Lihai Zhang, Licheng Zhang, Shuo Chen, Hailong Du, Yanpeng Zhao, Peifu Tang

Abstract

The choice between intramedullary (IM) nailing or plating of distal tibia fractures without articular involvement remains controversial. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies was performed to compare IM nailing with plating for distal tibia fractures without articular involvement and to determine the dominant strategy. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, Chinese Wan-Fang Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched. Twenty-eight studies, which included 1863 fractures, met the eligible criteria. The meta-analysis did not identify a statistically significant difference between the two treatments in terms of the rate of deep infection, delayed union, removal of instrumentation, or secondary procedures either in the RCT or retrospective subgroups. IM nailing was associated with significantly more malunion events and a higher incidence of knee pain in the retrospective subgroup and across all the studies, but not significantly in the RCT subgroup, and a lower rate of delayed wound healing and superficial infection both in the RCT and retrospective subgroups relative to plating. A meta-analysis of the functional scores or questionnaires was not possible because of the considerable variation among the included studies, and no significant differences were observed. Evidence suggests that both IM nailing and plating are appropriate treatments as IM nailing shows lower rate of delayed wound healing and superficial infection and plating may avoid malunion and knee pain. These findings should be interpreted with caution, however, because of the heterogeneity of the study designs. Large, rigorous RCTs are required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Unknown 68 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 14%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 9 13%
Other 7 10%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 48%
Engineering 6 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2015.
All research outputs
#12,929,037
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#370
of 1,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,970
of 239,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#8
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 239,955 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.