Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1186/s13018-015-0242-4 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1186/s13018-015-0242-4 C4570456!4570456 !26370230     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=26370230 &cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\26370230 .jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117       J+Orthop+Surg+Res 2015 ; 10 (ä): 122 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=26370230 |t=2015. Meta-analysis of locking plate versus intramedullary nail for treatment of proximal humeral fractures |pdf=|usr=}}{{26370230 }} gab.com Text Meta-analysis of locking plate versus intramedullary nail for treatment of proximal humeral fractures JO: J Orthop Surg Res http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26370230 #FOAvip PURPOSE: This meta-analysis compared the clinical outcomes of locking plate with intramedullary nail in the treatment of displaced proximal humeral fractures. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane databases for studies comparing locking plate and intramedullary nail treatment of displaced two-, three-, or four-part proximal humeral fractures. The quality of the studies was assessed, and meta-analysis was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's REVMAN 5.1 software. RESULTS: A total of 615 patients from eight studies were included in this meta-analysis (348 fractures treated with locking plate and 267 with intramedullary nail). Similar Constant scores were observed between the locking plate and intramedullary nail both in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (mean difference (MD)?=?2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.54 to 6.79, P?=?0.37) and observational studies (MD?=?-1.93, 95% CI, -4.95 to 1.09, P?=?0.21). Only one RCT provided American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized scores indicating that the locking plate was better than the intramedullary nail (MD?=?7.20, 95% CI, 1.29-13.11, P?=?0.02). The total complication rate did not specifically favor the locking plate or intramedullary nail both in the RCTs (risk ratio (RR), 2.44; 95% CI, 0.35-16.78; P?=?0.37) and observational studies (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.72-1.43; P?=?0.94). CONCLUSIONS: In the existing literature, limited evidence suggests that the locking plate and intramedullary nail are both valuable options for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures. Because of the observed heterogeneity and variance between the subgroups, more RCT are needed to be able to definitively recommend a locking plate or intramedullary nail for specific fracture patterns. Twit Text FOAVip Meta-analysis of locking plate versus intramedullary nail for treatment of proximal humeral fractures ????J Orthop Surg Res http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26370230 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26370230 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|26370230 }}</ref> Meta-analysis of locking plate versus intramedullary nail for treatment of proximal humeral fractures #MMPMID26370230 Wang G ; Mao Z ; Zhang L ; Zhang L ; Zhao Y ; Yin P ; Gao L ; Tang P ; Kang H J Orthop Surg Res 2015[Sep]; 10 (ä): 122 PMID26370230 show ga PURPOSE: This meta-analysis compared the clinical outcomes of locking plate with intramedullary nail in the treatment of displaced proximal humeral fractures. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane databases for studies comparing locking plate and intramedullary nail treatment of displaced two-, three-, or four-part proximal humeral fractures. The quality of the studies was assessed, and meta-analysis was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's REVMAN 5.1 software. RESULTS: A total of 615 patients from eight studies were included in this meta-analysis (348 fractures treated with locking plate and 267 with intramedullary nail). Similar Constant scores were observed between the locking plate and intramedullary nail both in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (mean difference (MD)?=?2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.54 to 6.79, P?=?0.37) and observational studies (MD?=?-1.93, 95% CI, -4.95 to 1.09, P?=?0.21). Only one RCT provided American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized scores indicating that the locking plate was better than the intramedullary nail (MD?=?7.20, 95% CI, 1.29-13.11, P?=?0.02). The total complication rate did not specifically favor the locking plate or intramedullary nail both in the RCTs (risk ratio (RR), 2.44; 95% CI, 0.35-16.78; P?=?0.37) and observational studies (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.72-1.43; P?=?0.94). CONCLUSIONS: In the existing literature, limited evidence suggests that the locking plate and intramedullary nail are both valuable options for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures. Because of the observed heterogeneity and variance between the subgroups, more RCT are needed to be able to definitively recommend a locking plate or intramedullary nail for specific fracture patterns. |*Bone Nails [MESH] |*Bone Plates [MESH] |Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary/*methods [MESH] |Humans [MESH] |Humeral Fractures/diagnosis/epidemiology/*surgery [MESH] |Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods [MESH]Meta-analysis of locking plate versus intramedullary nail for treatmen(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing