Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26376401›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2015

The Incidence of New Vertebral Fractures Following Vertebral Augmentation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Weixing Xie, Daxiang Jin, Chao Wan, Jinyong Ding, Shuncong Zhang, Xiaobing Jiang, Jixi Xu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Risk Factors for New Vertebral Compression Fracture After Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation: A Retrospective Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Vertebral fractures cascade: potential causes and risk factors.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2019
    Observational
  7. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Weixing XieFrom the Department of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Baiyun District, Guang Zhou City, Guangdong Province, China.
Daxiang Jin
Chao Wan
Jinyong Ding
Shuncong Zhang
Xiaobing Jiang
Jixi Xu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed that compares the relationship between percutaneous vertebral augmentation (PVA) and conservative treatments with the incidence of new vertebral fractures. Using meta-analytic techniques, this study compares PVA and conservative treatment for incidence of new vertebral fractures, particularly incidence of adjacent fractures that occur following treatment.A focus of clinicians has been on whether PVA increases the risk of new vertebral fractures. Pubmed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to retrieve literature published from the establishment of the databases until April 28, 2015. Literature of related areas was searched manually. The main outcome indicator was the incidence of new vertebral fractures at final follow-up appointment. In addition, we evaluated the incidence of new vertebral fractures in different follow-up periods and the incidence of adjacent fractures. The RevMan 5.3 software program of the Cochrane Collaboration was used to analyze the data. For dichotomous variables, the risk ratio (RR) and a confidence interval (CI) of 95% were used to express the heterogeneity of the effect size. Seven randomized controlled trial studies were selected from the literature. The studies include 871 patients, 436 of whom received PVA treatment and the rest received conservative treatment. Combined analysis of the 7 studies showed that the numbers of new vertebral fractures in the 2 groups are not significantly different. Six studies reported the numbers of new adjacent fractures. Considering the heterogeneity among the studies, 2 subgroups were formed. The 5 studies in the European group showed that the incidence of new adjacent fractures in the PVA-treated group is higher than that in the conservatively treated group, and the difference is statistically significant. The one study in the Asian group showed no significant difference between the incidences of adjacent fractures in the 2 groups. PVA treatment does not increase the incidence of new vertebral fractures. Most studies reported that PVA increases the incidence of adjacent fractures, yet it is rarely stated that both PVA and conservative treatment lead to the same incidence of adjacent fractures.

Indexed as

VertebroplastyHumansIncidencePostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSpinal Fractures

Identifiers

PMID26376401
PMCPMC4635815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.