ArticleMedicine2016
Comparison of the more than 5-year clinical outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials.
Article in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT05522010 (Dynamic Cervical Implant), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Dynamic Cervical Implant (DCI) Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy And Fusion(ACDF) For The Treatment Of Single-Level Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD): An RCT
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Motion analysis of dynamic cervical implant stabilization versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a retrospective analysis of 70 cases.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2018Article
- [Domestic artificial cervical disc interface pressure distribution and effect of bone-implant interface pressure on osseointegration].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) was almost the "golden standard" technique in treatment of symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease, however, it cause motion loss of the indexed level, increase the intradiscal pressure and motion of the adjacent levels, and may accelerate the degeneration of adjacent level. Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) was designed to preserve the motion of index level, avoid the over-activity of adjacent levels and reduce the degeneration of adjacent disc levels, the process of degeneration of adjacent level is very slowly, long term follow up studies should be conducted, this study aim to compare the more than 5 years' long-term clinical outcomes and safety between CDA and ACDF.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis that will be performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). The electric database of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library will be systematic search. A standard data form will be used to extract the data of included studies. We will assess the studies according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and perform analysis in software STATA 12.0. Fixed-effects models will be used for homogeneity data, while random-effects will be used for heterogeneity data. The overall effect sizes will be determined as weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes and Relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes.
resultsThe results of study will be disseminated via both international conference and peer-review journal.
conclusionThe conclusion of our study will provide the long-term and updated evidence of clinical outcomes and safety between CDA and ACDF, and help surgeon to change better surgical technique for patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.