ArticleBMJ open2022
Surgical and clinical efficacy of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion surgery: a meta-analysis protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction has been shown to cause significant morbidity. Current treatment includes conservative management and surgical intervention. Previously published data reporting clinical and surgical outcomes reached conflicting conclusions. This protocol aims to conduct a meta-analysis to determine fusion rates and patient-reported outcomes of minimally invasive (MIS) SIJ fusions compared with conservative treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We drafted our protocol according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. We will search PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library, supplemented by manual search when necessary. Two independent reviewers will screen for eligibility by title/abstract, then full text, arbitrated by a third reviewer if necessary. The two reviewers will carry out a risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool for randomised controlled trial and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies tool for observational cohort studies. A third reviewer will arbitrate any disagreement. We will perform data synthesis using Review Manager (RevMan for Windows, V.5.4.1, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (V.3.3.070). Meta-bias will be evaluated and confidence determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this review will not be required as no patient data is being collected. The results of this study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021273481.
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.