Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37661228›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2023

Comparison of intraoperative blood loss and perioperative complications between preoperative embolization and nonembolization combined with spinal tumor surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ruiqi Qiao, Rongxing Ma, Xiaozhao Zhang, Dengxing Lun, Ruifeng Li, Yongcheng Hu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in 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, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ruiqi QiaoDepartment of Bone and Soft Tissue Oncology, Tianjin Hospital, 406 Jiefang Southern Road, Tianjin, 300000, MD, China.
Rongxing MaGraduate School, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Xiaozhao ZhangQinghai Renji Hospital, Xining, China.
Dengxing LunDepartment of Bone Oncology, Weifang People's Hospital, Weifang, China.
Ruifeng LiGraduate School, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Yongcheng HuDepartment of Bone and Soft Tissue Oncology, Tianjin Hospital, 406 Jiefang Southern Road, Tianjin, 300000, MD, China. huycdoctor@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9846-6735
Tianjin Hospital · CNTianjin Medical University · CNRenji Hospital · CNWeifang People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe present study aimed to comparatively evaluate intraoperative blood loss (IBL) and perioperative complications between preoperative embolization (PE) and nonembolization (NE) combined with spinal tumor surgeries as well as to determine the subgroup of spinal tumor surgeries suitable for PE.

methodsA systematic search in PubMed and EMBASE and an additional search by reference lists of the retrieved studies were undertaken by two reviewers. The mean IBL and perioperative complication rate were employed as the effect size in the general quantitative synthesis through direct calculation. Meta-analysis was performed using standardized mean difference (SMD) and weighted mean difference (WMD) of IBL and the odds ratio (OR) of complications. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic.

resultsThe reviewers selected 17 published studies for the general quantitative synthesis and meta-analyses. The mean IBL of spinal tumor surgeries was 1786.3 mL in the NE group and 1716.4 mL in the PE group. The mean IBL between the two groups was similar. The pooled WMD and SMD of IBL in spinal tumor surgeries was 324.15 mL (95% CI 89.50-1640.9, p = 0.007) and 0.398 (95% CI 0.114-0.682, p = 0.006), respectively. The reduction of the PE group compared with the NE group for the rates of major complications and major hemorrhagic complications were 7.80% and 5.71%, respectively. The risk of PE-related complications in the PE group was only 1.53% more than in the PE group. The pooled OR of major complications in spinal tumor surgeries was 1.426 (95% CI 0.760-2.674; p = 0.269).

conclusionsPE may be suitable for spinal tumor surgeries and some subgroups. From the perspective of complications, PE may also be a feasible option for spinal tumor surgeries.

Indexed as

Spinal Cord NeoplasmsSpinal NeoplasmsBlood Loss, SurgicalHumansNeurosurgical ProceduresIntraoperative blood lossMeta-analysisPerioperative complicationPreoperative embolizationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37661228
OpenAlexW4386402302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.