ArticleGlobal spine journal2019
Allogenic Stem Cells in Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review.
Article in Global spine journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- 12-Month clinical and radiographic outcomes of ViBone viable bone matrix in patients undergoing cervical and lumbar spinal fusion surgery.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Trial
- AO Spine Guideline for the Use of Osteobiologics (AOGO) in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Spinal Degenerative Cases.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Is Platelet-Rich Plasma Effective in Enhancing Spinal Fusion? Systematic Overview of Overlapping Meta-Analyses.Global spine journal · 2022Article
- Therapeutics for enhancement of spinal fusion: A mini review.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2021Review
- Use of Autologous Stem Cells in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review of Current Clinical Evidence.Global spine journal · 2021Article
- The Impact of Osteobiologic Subtype Selection on Perioperative Complications and Hospital-Reported Charges in Single- and Multi-Level Lumbar Spinal Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2021Article
- Arthroscopic Contribution of Synthetic Graft in Tibiotalocalcaneal Arthroscopic Fusions.Cureus · 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designSystematic review.
objectivesTo review, critically appraise, and synthesize evidence on the use of allogenic stem cell products for spine fusion compared with other bone graft materials.
methodsSystematic searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, through October 31, 2018 and of EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov through April 13, 2018 were conducted for literature comparing allogenic stem cell sources for fusion in the lumbar or cervical spine with other fusion methods. In the absence of comparative studies, case series of ≥10 patients were considered.
resultsFrom 382 potentially relevant citations identified, 6 publications on lumbar fusion and 5 on cervical fusion met the inclusion criteria. For lumbar arthrodesis, mean Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, and fusion rates were similar for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using allogenic multipotent adult progenitor cells (Map3) versus recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) in the one comparative lumbar study (90% vs 92%). Across case series of allogenic stem cell products, function and pain were improved relative to baseline and fusion occurred in ≥90% of patients at ≥12 months. For cervical arthrodesis across case series, stem cell products improved function and pain compared with baseline at various time frames. In a retrospective cohort study fusion rates were not statistically different for Osteocel compared with Vertigraft allograft (88% vs 95%). Fusion rates varied across time frames and intervention products in case series.
conclusionsThe overall quality (strength) of evidence of effectiveness and safety of allogenic stem cells products for lumbar and cervical arthrodesis was very low, meaning that we have very little confidence that the effects seen are reflective of the true effects.
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.