ReviewWorld neurosurgery: X2023
Is anterior cervical plating necessary for cage constructs in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery for cervical degenerative disorders? Evidence-based on the systematic overview of meta-analyses.
Review in World neurosurgery: X, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Zero-profile anchored spacer versus conventional plate-cage construct in bilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study design: Systematic review of meta-analyses. Objective: To perform a systematic review of meta-analyses to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with stand-alone cage (SAC) and anterior cervical cage-plate constructs (ACCPC). Methods: The systematic overview was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and reported as per Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions following the methodology described in reporting Overview of reviews. Results: Based on the available level-1 evidence, SAC offers significantly better benefits over ACCPC, in terms of shorter operative time ( Conclusion: Based on the available evidence, SAC constructs in ACDF reduce blood loss, decreases operative time, mitigates post-operative dysphagia, lessens hospital-related expenditure and minimises long-term ASD rates.
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.