Comparison of Unilateral versus Bilateral Instrumented Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Minimum of 5-Year Follow-Up.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

1. One-hole split endoscopy versus unilateral biportal endoscopy for lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and complications.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025
   Pooled it
2. Comparative analysis of single vs. double cage insertion in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiological outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026
   Article
3. Comparison of short-segment and long-segment fixation in treatment of degenerative scoliosis and analysis of factors associated with adjacent spondylolisthesis.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2024
   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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as