ArticleGlobal spine journal2021
Autologous Stem Cells in Cervical Spine Fusion.
Article in Global spine journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- AO Spine Guideline for the Use of Osteobiologics (AOGO) in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Spinal Degenerative Cases.Global spine journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designSystematic review.
objectivesTo systematically review, critically appraise and synthesize evidence on use of stem cells from autologous stem cells from bone marrow aspirate, adipose, or any other autologous sources for fusion in the cervical spine compared with other graft materials.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE was conducted for literature published through October 31, 2018 and through February 20, 2020 for EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov comparing autologous cell sources for cervical spine fusion to other graft options.
resultsFrom 36 potentially relevant citations identified, 10 studies on cervical fusion met the inclusion criteria set a priori. Two retrospective cohort studies, one comparing cancellous bone marrow (CBM) versus hydroxyapatite (HA) and the other bone marrow aspirate (BMA) combined with autograft and HA versus autograft and HA alone, were identified. No statistical differences were seen between groups in either study for improvement in function, symptoms, or fusion; however, in the study evaluating BMA, the authors reported a statistically greater fusion rate and probability of fusion over time in the BMA versus the non-BMA group. Across case series evaluating BMA, authors reported improved function and pain and fusion ranged from 84% to 100% across the studies. In general, complications were poorly reported.
conclusionsThe overall quality (strength) of evidence of effectiveness and safety of autologous BMA for cervical arthrodesis in the current available literature was very low. Based on currently available data, firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness or safety of BMA in cervical fusions cannot be made.
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.