Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36448648›Full record

ReviewGlobal spine journal2023

Modic Changes of the Cervical and Lumbar Spine and Their Effect on Neck and Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Mark J Lambrechts, Tariq Z Issa, Gregory R Toci, Meghan Schilken, Jose A Canseco, Alan S Hilibrand, Gregory D Schroeder, Alexander R Vaccaro, Christopher K Kepler

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global spine journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mark J LambrechtsDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9106-2228
Tariq Z IssaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0978-5225
Gregory R TociDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4770-3507
Meghan SchilkenCollege of Medicine, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jose A CansecoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2152-5725
Alan S HilibrandDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8811-9687
Gregory D SchroederDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Alexander R VaccaroDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Christopher K KeplerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital · USDrexel University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designSystematic Review.

objectivesTo systematically review the current literature and perform a meta-analysis on patients with cervical or lumbar spine Modic changes to determine if their baseline axial back pain and disability are comparable to patients without Modic changes.

methodsA systematic review of the PubMed database was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the mean differences in back pain, leg pain, and disability based on the presence of cervical or lumbar spine Modic changes. A subgroup analysis of the different types of Modic changes was conducted to determine if Modic type affected back pain or disability.

results- After review of 259 articles, 17 studies were included for meta-analysis and ten studies were included for qualitative synthesis. In the lumbar spine, 10 high-quality studies analyzed Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back pain, 10 evaluated VAS leg pain, and 8 analyzed Oswestry Disability Index. VAS back pain (mean difference (MD), -.38; 95% CI, -.61 - .16) and Oswestry disability index (MD -2.52; 95% CI, -3.93 - -1.12) were significantly lower in patients without Modic changes. Modic change subtype was not associated with differences in patient-reported outcomes. Patients with cervical spine Modic changes did not experience more severe pain than those without MC.

conclusionsModic changes in the lumbar spine are not associated with clinically significant axial low back pain severity or patient disability. Similar to the lumbar spine, Modic changes in the cervical spine are not associated with symptom severity, but they are associated with pain duration.

Indexed as

back painend-plate signal changesmodic changesneck painpatient reported outcome measuressystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36448648
PMCPMC10416594
OpenAlexW4310462406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.