Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30880540›Full record

SynthesisThe Journal of international medical research2020

Comparison of anterior, posterior, and anterior combined with posterior surgical treatment of thoracic and lumbar spinal tuberculosis: a systematic review.

Zhouliang Bian, Yiding Gui, Fan Feng, Hongxing Shen, Lifeng Lao

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Journal of international medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Spinal tuberculosis: A case series and a literature review.Surgical neurology international · 2022
    Article
  14. 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

5 authors.

Zhouliang BianDepartment of Spine Surgery, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Yiding GuiDepartment of Spine Surgery, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Fan FengDepartment of Spine Surgery, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Hongxing ShenDepartment of Spine Surgery, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Lifeng LaoDepartment of Spine Surgery, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7102-8965

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study was performed to compare different surgical approaches in the treatment of spinal tuberculosis.

methodsWe conducted a literature search to identify and analyze papers published from January 1966 to April 2018 relevant to comparison of the anterior, posterior, and anterior combined with posterior approaches in the treatment of spinal tuberculosis of the thoracic and lumbar regions.

resultsTwenty-five studies involving 2295 patients were identified in this systematic review. The operative time was significantly longer in the anterior combined with posterior approach than in the other two approaches. Blood loss was significantly greater in the anterior combined with posterior approach (1125.0 ± 275.5 mL) than in the posterior approach (710.4 ± 192.4 mL). The difference in correction of the kyphosis angle among the three procedures was not significant. The overall surgical and transthoracic complications were significantly lower in the posterior approach. The clinical outcome of all patients improved, but there was no significant difference among the three procedures.

conclusionsBlood loss, overall surgical and transthoracic complications, and the operative time are different among the three approaches. Therefore, different factors must be carefully assessed in deciding among the three procedures.

Indexed as

Spinal FusionTuberculosis, SpinalHumansLumbar VertebraeLumbosacral RegionRetrospective StudiesThoracic VertebraeTreatment Outcomeblood losslumbar tuberculosisoperative timespinal tuberculosissurgical approachSurgical treatmentthoracic tuberculosis

Identifiers

PMID30880540
PMCPMC7581984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.