18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Retraction Note: A meta-analysis of external fixator versus intramedullary nails for open tibial fracture fixation

      retraction
      , , ,
      Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Retraction The Publisher and Editor regretfully retract this article [1] because the peer-review process was inappropriately influenced and compromised. As a result, the scientific integrity of the article cannot be guaranteed. A systematic and detailed investigation suggests that a third party was involved in supplying fabricated details of potential peer reviewers for a large number of manuscripts submitted to different journals. In accordance with recommendations from COPE we have retracted all affected published articles, including this one. It was not possible to determine beyond doubt that the authors of this particular article were aware of any third party attempts to manipulate peer review of their manuscript.

          Related collections

          Most cited references1

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          A meta-analysis of external fixator versus intramedullary nails for open tibial fracture fixation

          Background To compare the clinical outcomes of external fixator (EF) and intramedullary nails (IN) in the treatment of open tibial fractures. Methods We searched seven electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, Cochrane library, CNKI, and CBM) for trials of tibial fracture fixation published from 1980 to 2013. The indicators including postoperative infection, malunion, nonunion, soft tissue injury, delayed healing, and healing time were used for quantitative outcome assessments. Results A total of nine trials involving 532 patients (EF, n = 253; IN, n = 279) with open tibia fractures were included in this meta-analysis. The results indicated that the patients undergoing IN had lower incidence of postoperative infection (risk radio [RR] = 3.85; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 2.67–5.54; P < 0.0001), malunion (RR = 2.31; 95% CI, 1.40–3.81; P = 0.001), nonunion (RR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.06–1.88; P = 0.02) and less healing time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 6.19; 95% CI, 1.42–10.96; P = 0.01) compared with EF. However, regarding to the soft tissue injury (RR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.34–1.62; P = 0.45) and delayed healing (RR = 1.38; 95% CI, 0.79–2.43; P = 0.26), there is no significantly difference between EF and IN approach. Conclusion In conclusion, the use of IN is more effective than EF and may be considered as first-line approach in fixation of open tibial fractures.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Contributors
            xianxuxxx@163.com
            xulixxd@163.com
            linliullx@163.com
            weiwuortho@hotmail.com
            Journal
            J Orthop Surg Res
            J Orthop Surg Res
            Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
            BioMed Central (London )
            1749-799X
            26 March 2015
            26 March 2015
            2015
            : 10
            : 41
            Affiliations
            Department of Traumatic Orthopedics, East Hospital, No.150 Jimo Road, Pudong New District, Shanghai 200120 China
            Article
            180
            10.1186/s13018-015-0180-1
            4374508
            e7042424-e36b-409f-9614-a34f4a198288
            © Xu et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

            This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

            History
            : 4 March 2015
            : 4 March 2015
            Categories
            Retraction Note
            Custom metadata
            © The Author(s) 2015

            Surgery
            Surgery

            Comments

            Comment on this article