Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31689741›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2019

Surgery vs conservative treatment for type II and III odontoid fractures in a geriatric population: A meta-analysis.

Lei Fan, Dingqiang Ou, Xuna Huang, Mao Pang, Xiu-Xing Chen, Bu Yang, Qi-You Wang

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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.

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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The impact of odontoid screw fixation techniques on screw-related complications and fusion rates: 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 · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lei FanDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University.
Dingqiang OuDepartment of Orthopaedics, The First People's Hospital of Shunde.
Xuna HuangDepartment of Medical Research Center, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University.
Mao PangDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University.
Xiu-Xing ChenState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China.
Bu YangDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University.
Qi-You WangDepartment of Spine Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University.
Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University · CNSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CNThe First People's Hospital of Shunde · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is unclear whether surgery or conservative treatment is more suitable for elderly patients with type II and type III odontoid fractures. We performed this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of surgical and conservative treatments for type II and type III odontoid fractures.

methodsA literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library in January 2017. Only articles comparing surgery with conservative treatment in elderly patients with type II and type III odontoid fractures were selected. After 2 authors independently assessed the retrieved studies, 18 articles were included in this meta-analysis, and the primary endpoints were the nonunion rate and mortality rate. The secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, complications, and the length of the hospital stay. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Sensitivity analyses were performed for high-quality studies, and the publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot.

resultsLower nonunion (odds ratio [OR]: 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.18-0.40, P < .05) and mortality rates (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.34-0.79, P < .05) confirmed the superiority of surgery in treating type II and type III fractures. The secondary outcomes differed. Patients in the surgery group felt more satisfied with the outcome (OR: 3.44, 95% CI: 1.19-9.95, P < .05), and the complications were similar in the 2 groups (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.78-1.68, P = .5), whereas patients in conservative groups spent less time in the hospital (OR: 5.10, 95% CI: 2.73-7.47, P < .05). The results of the subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis were similar to the original outcomes, and no obvious publication bias was observed in the funnel plot.

conclusionMost elderly (younger than 70 years) patients with type II or type III odontoid fractures should be considered candidates for surgical treatment, due to the higher union rate and lower mortality rate, while statistically significant differences were not observed in the population with an advanced age (older than 70 years). Therefore, the selection of the therapeutic approach for elderly patients with odontoid fractures requires further exploration. Simultaneously, based on our meta-analysis, a posterior arthrodesis treatment was significantly superior to the anterior odontoid screw treatment.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsConservative TreatmentFracture FixationHumansLength of StayOdontoid ProcessPatient SatisfactionPostoperative ComplicationsSpinal Fractures

Identifiers

PMID31689741
PMCPMC6946417
OpenAlexW2986689867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.