SynthesisNeurosurgical review2024
Prevalence, risk factors, natural history, and prognostic significance of Modic changes in the cervical spine: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 12,754 participants.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of Modic changes on short-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
- Prevalence and distribution of Modic Changes and association with low back pain : a descriptive analysis.Bone & joint open · 2025Article
- Current and future advances in practice: cervical spondylosis and mechanical neck pain.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveModic changes (MCs) in the cervical spine are common, but remain an under-researched phenomenon, particularly regarding their prevalence, natural history, risk factors, and implications for surgical outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis endeavors to elucidate the multifactorial dimensions and clinical significance of cervical MCs.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive systematic search was performed using Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from their dates of inceptions to September 4, 2023. All identified articles were meticulously screened based on their relevance to our investigative criteria. Bias was assessed using quality assessments tools, including Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Diverse datasets encompassing MCs prevalence, demographic influences, risk factors, cervical sagittal parameters, and surgical outcomes were extracted. Meta-analysis using both random and common effects model was used to synthesis the metadata.
resultsFrom a total of 867 studies, 38 met inclusion criteria and underwent full-text assessment. The overall prevalence of cervical MCs was 26.0% (95% CI: 19.0%, 34.0%), with a predominance of type 2 MCs (15% ; 95% CI: 0.10%, 0.23%). There was no significant difference between MCs and non-MCs in terms of neck pain (OR:3.09; 95% CI: 0.81, 11.88) and radicular pain (OR: 1.44; 95% CI: 0.64, 3.25). The results indicated a significantly higher mean age in the MC group (MD: 1.69 years; 95% CI: 0.29 years, 3.08 years). Additionally, smokers had 1.21 times the odds (95% CI: 1.01, 1.45) of a higher risk of developing MCs compared to non-smokers. While most cervical sagittal parameters remained unaffected, the presence of MCs indicated no substantial variation in pain intensity. However, a significant finding was the lower Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores observed in MC patients at the 3-month (MD: -0.34, 95% CI: -0.62, -0.07) and 6-month (MD: -0.40, 95% CI: -0.80, 0.00) postoperative periods, indicating a prolonged recovery phase.
conclusionThis study found a predominant of type 2 MCs in the cervical spine. However, there was no significant mean difference between MCs and non-MC groups regarding neck pain and radicular pain. The results underscore the necessity for expansive, longitudinal research to elucidate the complexity of cervical MCs, particularly in surgical and postoperative contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39207546What 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.