Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24321129›Full record

ArticleThe spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society2014

Complications, revision fusions, readmissions, and utilization over a 1-year period after bone morphogenetic protein use during primary cervical spine fusions.

Adam P Goode, William J Richardson, Robin M Schectman, Timothy S Carey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Adam P GoodeDepartment of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, 2200 West Main Street, Durham, NC 27705, USA. Electronic address: Adam.goode@duke.edu.
William J RichardsonDepartment of Orthopedics, Duke University School of Medicine, 3077 Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Robin M SchectmanCecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB# 7590, 725 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7590, USA.
Timothy S CareyCecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB# 7590, 725 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7590, USA.
Duke University · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Duke Mentored CER Scholar ProgramK12HS019479 · AHRQ · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI ODDONE, EUGENE Z. · 2010 to 2010
$1.9M
AHRQ HHS HS19479-01AHRQ HHS K12 HS019479NIAMS NIH HHS 1-L30-AR057661-02NIAMS NIH HHS L30 AR057661
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background contextNationwide estimates examining bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) use with cervical spine fusions have been limited to perioperative outcomes. PURPOSE: To determine the 1-year risk of complications, cervical revision fusions, hospital readmissions, and health care services utilization. STUDY

designA retrospective cohort study from 2002 to 2009 using a nationwide claims database. PATIENT SAMPLE: There were 61,937 primary cervical spine fusions of which 1,677 received BMP. OUTCOME MEASURES: Complications, revision fusions, 30-day hospital readmission, and health care utilization.

methodsData for these analyses come from the Thomson Reuters MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database 2010. Patients were aged 18 to 64 years, receiving and not receiving BMP with a primary (C2-C7) cervical spine fusion. All outcomes were defined by International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition Clinical Modification and Current Procedural and Terminology, 4th edition codes. Complications were analyzed as any complication and stratified by nervous system, wound, and dysphagia or hoarseness. Cervical revision fusions were determined in the 1-year follow-up. Hospital readmission discharge records defined 30-day hospital readmission and reason for the readmission. The utilization of at least one health care service of cervical spine imaging, epidural usage or rehabilitation service was examined. Poisson regression models were used to estimate the relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI). Linear regression was used to determine the time to hospital readmission. Results were stratified by anterior or posterior and circumferential approaches.

resultsPatients receiving BMP were 29% more likely to have a complication (adjusted relative risk [aRR]=1.29 [95% CI, 1.14-1.46]) and a nervous system complication (aRR=1.42 [95% CI, 1.10-1.83]). Cervical revision fusions were more likely among patients receiving BMP (aRR=1.69 [95% CI, 1.35-2.13]). The risk of 30-day readmission was greater with BMP use (aRR=1.37 [95% CI, 1.07-1.73]) and readmission occurred 27.4% sooner on an average. Patients receiving BMP were more likely to receive computed tomography scans (aRR=1.34 [95% CI, 1.06-1.70]) and epidurals with anterior surgical approaches (aRR=1.29 [95% CI, 1.00-1.65]).

conclusionsThese findings question both the safety and effectiveness of off-label BMP use in primary cervical spine fusions.

Indexed as

AdultBone Morphogenetic ProteinsCervical VertebraeCohort StudiesDatabases, FactualDeglutition DisordersFemaleHealth ServicesHumansIntervertebral Disc DegenerationIntervertebral Disc DisplacementLinear ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPatient ReadmissionPostoperative ComplicationsBone Morphogenetic ProteinsBone morphogenetic proteinCervical revision fusionCervical spine fusionComplicationsHealth care utilizationHospital re-admission

Identifiers

PMID24321129
PMCPMC4048648
OpenAlexW2034667669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.