ArticleMedicine2020
Posterior percutaneous endoscopic versus traditional surgery for cervical disc herniation: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of Safety and Efficacy of Full-Endoscopic Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel for Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Surgeon reported practice patterns related to full endoscopic cervical decompression procedures.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 · 2023Article
- Cervical Radiculopathy Impact Scale: Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Turkish version.Archives of rheumatology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPosterior percutaneous endoscopic cervical diskectomy (P-PECD) can be used posterior microdiscectomy for cervical disc herniation. But only some small sample sizes of clinical studies have evaluated the efficacy and safety of P-PECD. This study aim to evaluated the efficacy and safety of P-PECD compared with traditional open surgery.
methodsWe will search the following seven electronic databases from their initiation to the May 1, 2020: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) and Wanfang database. All randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials and retrospective case controls that compared the efficacy and safety of P-PECD and traditional open surgery in the treatment of cervical disc herniation will be included. The pooled odds ratio with 95% credible intervals (CIs) was used for the dichotomous variables. The mean difference with 95% CIs was used for the continuous variables. All analyses were conducted by Comprehensive Meta Analysis 2.0. A 2-tailed P value < 0.05 is considered statistically significant.
resultsThe results of systematic review and meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.
conclusionOur study will provide clarity regarding for clinicians to choices best surgical approach for patients with cervical disc herniation. Any changes that need to be made during the process of this study will be explained in the final full-text publication. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020164011.
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.