Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36011795›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Evaluating the Impact of Modic Changes on Operative Treatment in the Cervical and Lumbar Spine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Mark J Lambrechts, Parker Brush, Tariq Z Issa, Gregory R Toci, Jeremy C Heard, Amit Syal, Meghan M Schilken, Jose A Canseco, Christopher K Kepler, Alexander R Vaccaro

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Novel Modic grading scoring system and its clinical validation: a preliminary investigation.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 · 2024
    Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Review
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

10 authors.

Mark J LambrechtsRothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.
Parker BrushRothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.
Tariq Z IssaRothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.
Gregory R TociRothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.
Jeremy C HeardRothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.
Amit SyalRothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2514-5316
Meghan M SchilkenRothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.
Jose A CansecoRothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.
Christopher K KeplerRothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.
Alexander R VaccaroRothman Orthopedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modic changes (MCs) are believed to be potential pain generators in the lumbar and cervical spine, but it is currently unclear if their presence affects postsurgical outcomes. We performed a systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. All studies evaluating cervical or lumbar spine postsurgical outcomes in patients with documented preoperative MCs were included. A total of 29 studies and 6013 patients with 2688 of those patients having preoperative MCs were included. Eight included studies evaluated cervical spine surgery, eleven evaluated lumbar discectomies, nine studied lumbar fusion surgery, and three assessed lumbar disc replacements. The presence of cervical MCs did not impact the clinical outcomes in the cervical spine procedures. Moreover, most studies found that MCs did not significantly impact the clinical outcomes following lumbar fusion, lumbar discectomy, or lumbar disc replacement. A meta-analysis of the relevant data found no significant association between MCs and VAS back pain or ODI following lumbar discectomy. Similarly, there was no association between MCs and JOA or neck pain following ACDF procedures. Patients with MC experienced statistically significant improvements following lumbar or cervical spine surgery. The postoperative improvements were similar to patients without MCs in the cervical and lumbar spine.

Indexed as

DiskectomyLumbar VertebraeCervical VertebraeHumansLumbosacral RegionNeck PainTreatment Outcomeanterior cervical discectomy and fusioncervical spinediscectomylumbar fusionlumbar spineModic changespatient reported outcomes

Identifiers

PMID36011795
PMCPMC9408205

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.