SynthesisMedicine2017
Surgical interventions for cervical spondylosis due to ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical efficacy and complications of 10 surgical interventions for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- Reoperation rate and risk factors of reoperation for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL): a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Analysis of Postoperative Clinical Outcomes in Cervical Myelopathy due to Ossification of Posterior Longitudinal Ligament Involving C2.Asian spine journal · 2023Article
- Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament in the Cervical, Thoracic, and Lumbar Spine.Cureus · 2021Article
- Review
- Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament: Surgical Approaches and Associated Complications.Neurospine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of various surgical interventions for the management of cervical spondylosis due to the ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL).
methodsAfter a comprehensive literature search in electronic databases, studies were selected by following pre-determined eligibility criteria. Random effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate the effect sizes of various surgical approaches in improving Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores at latest follow-up and meta-regression analyses were carried out to examine the factors affecting the change in JOA score.
resultsTwenty-three studies [1576 patients; 57.83 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI: 55.98-59.68] years of age; and 73 (70-76) % males; follow-up 55.4 ± 25.7 (range 12-170) months] were included in the meta-analysis. All surgical interventions significantly (P < .00001) improved JOA score. Anterior surgical approaches had an effect size of 4.80 [4.10-5.50] and posterior approaches with laminectomy and laminoplasty improved JOA score by 3.57 [2.39-4.75] and 3.99 [3.65-4.32], respectively. Improvement in JOA score was significantly inversely related to the preoperative JOA score (P < .00001). Surgical interventions did not significantly affect cervical lordosis at the latest follow-up.
conclusionSurgical interventions for cervical spondylosis due to OPLL significantly improve JOA score as observed at the latest follow-up and this is found to be significantly inversely associated with preoperative JOA score.
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.