Clinical and radiological outcomes of non-window-type bioactive glass-ceramic cage in single-level ACDF versus PEEK cage filled with autologous bone.

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. Utility of bioactive glasses as fusion substrates for cervical and lumbar fusion: a systematic review.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026
   Review
2. Advancements in Nanotechnology for Spinal Surgery: Innovations in Spinal Fixation Devices for Enhanced Biomechanical Performance and Osteointegration.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
   Review

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.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

Indexed as