Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35461244›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022

Impact of heterotopic ossification following lumbar total disk replacement: a systematic review.

Colleen Hood, Reza Zamani, Mohammad Akrami

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Colleen HoodMedical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Reza ZamaniMedical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Mohammad AkramiDepartment of Engineering, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. m.akrami@exeter.ac.uk.
University of Exeter · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background contextLumbar total disc replacement (TDR) is an alternative to lumbar fusion in the treatment of lower back pain and reduces the risk of adjacent segment degeneration. Heterotopic ossification (HO) has been identified as a common complication following lumbar TDR. PURPOSE: This systematic review aims to determine the prevalence, risk factors and clinical and radiological impact of HO following lumbar TDR. STUDY

designSystematic Review.

methodsMEDLINE, Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Central were searched for articles that referred to lumbar TDR and HO. The hits were assessed against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data from each included study was extracted and analysed with respect to the study aims.

resultsTwenty-six studies were included in this review and the pooled prevalence of HO was estimated to be between 13.2% (participants) and 15.3% (vertebral levels). TDR clinical outcomes were not found to be reduced by HO and there was insufficient data to identify a given impact upon radiological outcomes. Age and follow up time were identified as potential risk factors for HO.

conclusionsThis review was hampered by inconsistencies in the reporting of HO across the studies. We therefore recommend that a set of guidelines should be produced to aid future researchers and reduce the risk of bias.

Indexed as

Intervertebral Disc DegenerationLow Back PainOssification, HeterotopicTotal Disc ReplacementHumansLumbar VertebraeLumbosacral RegionTreatment OutcomeArthroplastyClinical outcomeDegenerative disc/diskDisc/disk diseaseDisc/disk replacementHeterotopic ossificationLumbar spineSpine surgerySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35461244
PMCPMC9034498
OpenAlexW4224436072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.