SynthesisEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2022
Quality assessment of systematic reviews of surgical treatment of cervical spine degenerative diseases: an overview.
Synthesis in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2022. 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.
- Mobile-Based Digital Rehabilitation Program for Patients After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Prospective Cohort Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2025Article
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
objectiveTo gather all systematic reviews of surgical treatment of degenerative cervical diseases and assess their quality, conclusions and outcomes.
methodsA literature search for systematic reviews of surgical treatment of degenerative cervical diseases was conducted. Studies should have at least one surgical procedure as an intervention. Included studies were assessed for quality through Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) questionnaires. Quality of studies was rated accordingly to their final score as very poor (<30%), poor (30%-50%), fair (50%-70%), good (70%-90%), and excellent (>90%). If an article reported a conclusion addressing its primary objective with supportive statistical evidence for it, they were deemed to have an evidence-based conclusion.
resultsA total of 65 systematic reviews were included. According to AMSTAR and PRISMA, 1.5% to 6.2% of studies were rated as excellent, while good studies counted for 21.5% to 47.7%. According to AMSTAR, most studies were of fair quality (46.2%), and 6.2% of very poor quality. Mean PRISMA score was 70.2%, meaning studies of good quality. For both tools, performing a meta-analysis significantly increased studies scores and quality. Cervical spondylosis studies reached highest scores among diseases analyzed. Authors stated conclusions for interventions compared in 70.7% of studies, and only two of them were not supported by statistical evidence.
conclusionSystematic reviews of surgical treatment of cervical degenerative diseases present "fair" to "good" quality in their majority, and most of the reported conclusions are supported by statistical evidence. Including a meta-analysis significantly increases the quality of a systematic review.
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.