Cited by 278Bone fractures and treatmentsBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsBone health and osteoporosis research

Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) for fracture healing in adults

Open access
Garrison, Kimberly R, Shemilt, Ian, Donell, Simon, Ryder, Jonathan J, Mugford, Miranda, Harvey, Ian, Song, Fujian, Alt, Volker·2010·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Delay in fracture healing is a complex clinical and economic issue for patients and health services. OBJECTIVES: To assess the incremental effectiveness and costs of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) on fracture healing in acute fractures and nonunions compared with standards of care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library (2008, Issue 4), MEDLINE, and other major health and health economics databases (to October 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and full or partial economic evaluations of BMP for fracture healing in skeletally mature adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All clinical and economic data were extracted by one author and checked by another. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven RCTs, all at high risk of bias, and four economic evaluations were included. Apart from one study, the times to fracture healing were comparable between the BMP and control groups. There was some evidence for increased healing rates, without requiring a secondary procedure, of BMP compared with usual care control in acute, mainly open, tibial fractures (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.43). The pooled RR for achieving union for nonunited fractures was 1.02 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.15). One study found no difference in union for patients who had corrective osteotomy for radial malunions. Data from three RCTs indicated that fewer secondary procedures were required for acute fracture patients treated with BMP versus controls (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.83). Adverse events experienced were infection, hardware failure, pain, donor site morbidity, heterotopic bone formation and immunogenic reactions. The evidence on costs for BMP-2 for acute open tibia fractures is from one large RCT. This indicates that the direct medical costs associated with BMP would generally be higher than treatment with standard care, but this cost difference may decrease as fracture severity increases. Limited evidence suggests that the direct medical costs associated with BMP could be offset by faster healing and reduced time off work for patients with the most severe open tibia fractures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights a paucity of data on the use of BMP in fracture healing as well as considerable industry involvement in currently available evidence. There is limited evidence to suggest that BMP may be more effective than controls for acute tibial fracture healing, however, the use of BMP for treating nonunion remains unclear. The limited available economic evidence indicates that BMP treatment for acute open tibial fractures may be more favourable economically when used in patients with the most severe fractures.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd006950.pub2

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A Cochrane review concluded there is limited evidence that intraoperative BMP is more effective than control treatment for fracture healing.

    “A Cochrane review on the effects of intraoperative application of BMP on fracture healing concluded that there is limited evidence that BMP is more effective than control treatment, and the efficacy of BMP for the treatment of nonunion remains unclear (103).”

    From Methods to accelerate fracture healing – a narrative review from a clinical perspective (2024) · cites this paper as [103]

    The Authors’ conclusions say there is limited evidence suggesting BMP may be more effective than controls for acute tibial fracture healing, and that its use for nonunion remains unclear. The citing sentence omits the acute-tibial-fracture restriction and states the possible benefit more firmly than the review does. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The efficacy of BMP for treatment of nonunion remains unclear.

    “A Cochrane review on the effects of intraoperative application of BMP on fracture healing concluded that there is limited evidence that BMP is more effective than control treatment, and the efficacy of BMP for the treatment of nonunion remains unclear (103).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garrison, K. R., Shemilt, I., Donell, S., Ryder, J. J., Mugford, M., Harvey, I., Song, F., & Alt, V.
Affiliations
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg (DE)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-06-16
Volume
2010
Issue
6
Pages
CD006950-CD006950
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W2147144859
Cited by
278
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 20
FWCI
2.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (04/34/02)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Bone fractures and treatments
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
Keywords
bone morphogenetic proteins, fracture healing, nonunion, acute fractures, tibial fractures, open fractures, corrective osteotomy, secondary procedures, heterotopic ossification, donor site morbidity, health care costs, economic evaluation, time to union, hardware failure, infection risk
MeSH terms
Adult, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Fractures, Ununited, Humans, Radius Fractures, Recombinant Proteins, Tibial Fractures, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Transforming Growth Factor beta, Health Care Costs, Fracture Healing, Fractures, Malunited, Bone Morphogenetic Proteins, Fractures, Bone, Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2, Bone Morphogenetic Protein 7

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review