Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29030703›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2018

Osteoporotic vertebral fractures: predictive factors for conservative treatment failure. A systematic review.

Marco Muratore, Andrea Ferrera, Alessandro Masse, Alessandro Bistolfi

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in 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, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marco MuratoreDepartment of Orthopaedics, Traumatology and Rehabilitation, Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre, CTO, Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Via Zuretti 29, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Andrea FerreraDepartment of Orthopaedics, Traumatology and Rehabilitation, Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre, CTO, Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Via Zuretti 29, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Alessandro MasseDepartment of Orthopaedics, Traumatology and Rehabilitation, Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre, CTO, Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Via Zuretti 29, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Alessandro BistolfiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Traumatology and Rehabilitation, Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre, CTO, Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Via Zuretti 29, 10126, Turin, Italy. abistolfi@cittadellasalute.to.it.ORCID 0000-0002-4396-6222
CTO Hospital · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo analyze clinical, radiographic and magnetic resonance findings that might predict risk of complications and conservative treatment failure of osteoporotic vertebral fractures.

methodsThe authors conducted a systematic review of observational studies, collecting data on osteoporotic vertebral fracture and complications like vertebral collapse, kyphosis, pseudoarthrosis, and neurologic deficit. MeSH items such as 'spinal fracture/radiology,' 'spinal fracture/complications,' 'spinal fracture/diagnosis' were used. PRISMA statement criteria were applied, and the risk of bias was classified as low, medium, high, following the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS).

resultsEleven cohort studies, either retrospective or prospective, met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Major risk factors that were statistically predictive of the following complications were as follows; (1) vertebral collapse: presence of intravertebral cleft, MR T1-WI 'total type fractures' and T2-WI 'hypointense-wide-type'. (2) Pseudoarthrosis (nonunion): middle-column damage, thoracolumbar vertebrae involvement, MR T2-WI confined high-intensity pattern and diffuse low intensity pattern. (3) Kyphotic deformity: thoracolumbar fracture and superior endplate fracture. (4) Neurologic impairment: a retropulsed bony fragment occupying more than 42% of the sagittal diameter of the spinal canal and a change of more than 15° in vertebral wedge angle on lateral dynamic radiography.

conclusionsShape and level of the fracture were risk factors associated with the progression of collapse, pseudoarthrosis, kyphotic deformity and neurologic impairment. MRI findings were often related to the failure of conservative treatment. If prognosis can be predicted at the early fracture stage, more aggressive treatment options, rather than conservative ones, might be considered.

Indexed as

Conservative TreatmentOsteoporotic FracturesSpinal FracturesHumansRisk FactorsTreatment FailureKyphotic deformityNeurologic impairmentOsteoporotic vertebral compression fracturesPseudoarthrosisRisk factorsVertebral collapse

Identifiers

PMID29030703
OpenAlexW2764208869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.