ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2019
An evaluation of biomaterials and osteobiologics for arthrodesis achievement in spine surgery.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Application of Biologic and Synthetic Bone Grafts in Scoliosis Surgery: A Scoping Review of Emerging Technologies.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Transforming spinal surgery with innovations in biologics and additive manufacturing.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
- Review
- Animal Model for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Literature Review.Spine surgery and related research · 2024Review
- Osteobiologics and Value-Based Care: Challenges and Opportunities.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- Fusion Assessment of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Demineralized Bone Matrix: A 2-Year Prospective Study.Neurospine · 2023Article
- Recent Advances in Bioengineering Bone Revascularization Based on Composite Materials Comprising Hydroxyapatite.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Biomechanical Comparison of Different Numbers and Configurations of Cross-Links in Long-Segment Spinal Fixation-An Experimental Study in a Porcine Model.Global spine journal · 2023Article
- Use of graft materials and biologics in spine deformity surgery: a state-of-the-art review.Spine deformity · 2022Review
- Therapeutics for enhancement of spinal fusion: A mini review.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2021Review
- 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
- Trends in lumbar spinal fusion-a literature review.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2020Review
- Comparative outcomes of polyetheretherketone cage versus autograft harvested fromJournal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
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
An increasing variety of orthobiologic materials, including autologous and allogeneic bone graft, bone marrow aspirate, demineralized bone matrix, ceramics, and growth factors are available to the spine surgeon. Although autologous bone graft remains the gold standard material, concerns for failure in achieving fusion have prompted evaluation of current and new biologic materials. As such, this review attempts to summarize the available biologic materials with their pertinent characteristics, advantages, disadvantages, and primary uses.
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.