ArticleMedicine2020
Protocol of a meta-analysis: Clinical efficacy and complications of short versus long fusion for the treatment of degenerative scoliosis.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of long fusion versus short fusion in degenerative scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of long fusion (LF) versus short fusion (SF) for the treatment of degenerative scoliosis (DS).
methodsWe will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to collect the randomized and non-randomized controlled studies that compared LF with SF in the treatment of DS from inception to June 1, 2019. The quality of the included studies will be assessed by 2 evaluation members according to the Cochrane collaboration network standard or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The included studies will be analyzed using RevMan 5 (version 5.3.3). RESULTS AND
conclusionThe study will compare the efficacy and safety of LF and SF in the treatment of DS and provide more reliable, evidence-based data for clinical decision making. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019137646.
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.