ArticleGlobal spine journal2018
Comparing the 5-Year Health State Utility Value of Cervical Disc Replacement and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.
Article in Global spine journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness of anterior surgical decompression surgery for cervical degenerative disk disease: a systematic review of economic evaluations.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 · 2022Pooled it
- Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement Versus Fusion for Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2019Pooled it
- Clinical Outcomes of Cervical Hybrid Reconstructions: A Prospective Study.International journal of spine surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designHealth utility analysis.
objectivesTo determine the health state utility (HSU) of 1- and 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc replacement (CDR).
methodsData from the Medtronic Prestige Cervical Disc investigational device exemption studies was used. Four groups were defined: 1-level ACDF, 1-level CDR, 2-level ACDF, and 2-level CDR. The 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) was collected at baseline, 12 months, 24 months, 36 months, and 60 months postoperatively and converted into utility scores for each time point. A repeated-measures 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to detect differences among groups. Tukey's method for multiple comparisons was used to determine which means within the groups were statistically different (
resultsWe found a statistically significant difference in HSU among groups as determined by repeated-measures 1-way ANOVA (
conclusionsOverall, CDR had higher health state utility scores for 1- and 2-level procedures at every time point. This study indicates that CDR results in a higher postoperative health utility state than ACDF, and may therefore be an effective alternative to ACDF for treating degenerative conditions of the cervical spine.
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.