Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30619681›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2018

ISASS Recommendations and Coverage Criteria for Bone Graft Substitutes used in Spinal Surgery.

Celeste Abjornson, Antonio Brecevich, Tucker Callanan, Christina Dowe, Frank P Cammisa, Morgan P Lorio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Ceramic substitutes, failure to achieve solid fusion in posterolateral instrumented fusion: a surgical and histological evaluation.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 · 2025
    Article
  4. Synthetic osteobiologics in spine surgery: a review.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. FDA-approved bone grafts and bone graft substitute devices in bone regeneration.Materials science & engineering. C, Materials for biological applications · 2021
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors.

Celeste AbjornsonHospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.
Antonio BrecevichHospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.
Tucker CallananHospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.
Christina DoweHospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.
Frank P CammisaHospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.
Morgan P LorioHughston Clinic Orthopaedics, Nashville, Tennessee.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Autologous bone graft remains the gold standard by which bone graft substitutes are compared in spine fusion surgery. The utilization of bone graft substitutes, either as (1) an extender for spinal fusion constructs or (2) an alternative to minimize morbidity while maximizing outcomes, is changing. Moreover, current procedures technology (CPT) code 20939 became effective in 2018 defining bone marrow aspirate for bone grafting, spine surgery only. Changes in the complex landscape of grafting materials have prompted ISASS to provide category guidance for bone graft substitutes by comparing and contrasting US regulatory pathways, mechanisms of action, and supportive clinical evidence for these bone grafting materials.

Identifiers

PMID30619681
PMCPMC6314336

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.