Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31561556›Full record

ReviewBiomedicines2019

Graft Materials and Biologics for Spinal Interbody Fusion.

Marissa D'Souza, Nicholas A Macdonald, Julian L Gendreau, Pate J Duddleston, Austin Y Feng, Allen L Ho

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicines, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07217964 (Evaluating Natural Matrix Protein), which is not on this map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT07217964 enrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Evaluating Natural Matrix Protein (NMP) in Lumbar Spinal Fusion

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorHospital for Special Surgery, New YorkRan2025 to 2027Enrolled100ConditionsDegenerative Lumbar Spinal ConditionsArmsRadiographic Evaluation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Thoracic corpectomy and vertebral body reconstruction (TCVBR): a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marissa D'SouzaSchool of Medicine, Mercer University School of Medicine, Macon, GA 31207, USA. marissa.dsouza@live.mercer.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7322-9939
Nicholas A MacdonaldSchool of Medicine, Mercer University School of Medicine, Macon, GA 31207, USA. Nicholas.Aubrey.Macdonald@live.mercer.edu.
Julian L GendreauSchool of Medicine, Mercer University School of Medicine, Macon, GA 31207, USA. Julian.Lassiter.Gendreau@live.mercer.edu.
Pate J DuddlestonSchool of Medicine, Mercer University School of Medicine, Macon, GA 31207, USA. Pate.Jackson.Duddleston@live.mercer.edu.
Austin Y FengDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. fenga@stanford.edu.
Allen L HoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. allenlho@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1485-451X
Mercer University · USStanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spinal fusion is the most widely performed procedure in spine surgery. It is the preferred treatment for a wide variety of pathologies including degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, segmental instability, and deformity. Surgeons have the choice of fusing vertebrae by utilizing cages containing autografts, allografts, demineralized bone matrices (DBMs), or graft substitutes such as ceramic scaffolds. Autografts from the iliac spine are the most commonly used as they offer osteogenic, osteoinductive, and osteoconductive capabilities, all while avoiding immune system rejection. Allografts obtained from cadavers and living donors can also be advantageous as they lack the need for graft extraction from the patient. DBMs are acid-extracted organic allografts with osteoinductive properties. Ceramic grafts containing hydroxyapatite can be readily manufactured and are able to provide osteoinductive support while having a long shelf life. Further, bone-morphogenetic proteins (BMPs), mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), synthetic peptides, and autologous growth factors are currently being optimized to assist in improving vertebral fusion. Genetic therapies utilizing viral transduction are also currently being devised. This review provides an overview of the advantages, disadvantages, and future directions of currently available graft materials. The current literature on growth factors, stem cells, and genetic therapy is also discussed.

Indexed as

allograftautograftbiologicsbone-morphogenetic proteinceramicdemineralized bone matrixgenetic therapygraftmesenchymal stem cellsspinal fusion

Identifiers

PMID31561556
PMCPMC6966429
OpenAlexW2976494232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.