ArticleGlobal spine journal2025
Decompression Alone vs Decompression and Fusion: Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Global spine journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- High rates of spin bias in systematic reviews regarding anterior cervical discectomy and fusionJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Review
- Reporting bias is prevalent in systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to endoscopicJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
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
STUDY
designCross-sectional.
objectivesSpin, a prevalent bias, can distort outcomes in well-validated research. Treatment of lumbar stenosis with spondylolisthesis through decompression alone (DA) vs decompression and fusion (DF) remains a controversial topic. We aimed to identify the prevalence of spin in meta-analyses and systematic reviews regarding DA vs DF in the treatment of spinal stenosis with concomitant degenerative spondylolisthesis.
methodsMEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for meta-analyses and systematic reviews comparing DA vs DF treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis accompanied by degenerative spondylolisthesis. Each study was evaluated for the nine most severe spin types. We also explored the association between spin and methodological quality of a systematic review using the revised A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews appraisal tool.
resultsThe search yielded 1506 articles, of which 13 met inclusion. It was found that 46.2% (6/13) of the articles contained spin within the abstract. Of the nine most severe types, type 5 was found to be the most prevalent (4/13, 30.8%), followed by types 9 (2/13, 15.4%), 3 (1/13, 7.7%), 4 (1/13, 7.7%), and 6 (1/13, 7.7%). Spin types 1, 2, 7 and 8 were not found. According to AMSTAR-2, 53.8% (7/13) of the studies were appraised as "critically low" quality and 46.2% (6/13) as "low" quality.
conclusionThis study demonstrated the presence of spin in 46.2% of abstracts pertaining to the treatment for spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine surgeons should learn to recognize spin as they review articles before implementing them into practice.
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.