Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39278993›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2024

Effect of electrical stimulation on the fusion rate after spinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mingjiang Luo, Xin Zeng, Lingling Jiang, Qilong Yi, Lanxin Zhang, Haoyun Wang, Jinshan Huang, Zihan Zhang, Siliang Tang, Zhihong Xiao

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Bone Growth Stimulators to Enhance Spinal Fusion Outcomes.Spine surgery and related research · 2026
    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

10 authors.

Mingjiang LuoDepartment of Spine Surgery, Lishui Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Lishui People's Hospital, Lishui, Zhejiang, China.
Xin ZengDepartment of Spine Surgery, Lishui Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Lishui People's Hospital, Lishui, Zhejiang, China.
Lingling JiangHengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China.
Qilong YiHengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China.
Lanxin ZhangHengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China.
Haoyun WangHengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, Hunan Province, China.
Jinshan HuangDepartment of Spinal Surgery Second Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, 421000, Hunan Province, China.
Zihan ZhangDepartment of Spinal Surgery Second Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, 421000, Hunan Province, China.
Siliang TangDepartment of Spinal Surgery Second Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang City, 421000, Hunan Province, China. 498381035@qq.com.
Zhihong XiaoDepartment of Spine Surgery, Lishui Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Lishui People's Hospital, Lishui, Zhejiang, China. 1982622526@qq.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electrical stimulation is an important adjuvant therapy for spinal surgery, but whether receiving electrical stimulation can improve the fusion rate after spinal surgery is still controversial. The purpose of this study was to analyse and evaluate the effect of electrical stimulation on the fusion rate after spinal surgery. We systematically searched for related articles published in the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases on or before September 30, 2023. The odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and the fusion rates of the experimental group and the control group were calculated by a random-effects meta-analysis model. The analysis showed that receiving electrical stimulation significantly increased the probability of successful spinal fusion (OR 2.66 [95% CI 1.79-3.97]), and the average fusion rate of the electrical stimulation group (86.8%) was significantly greater than that of the control group (73.7%). The fusion rate in the direct current (DC) stimulation group was 2.33 times greater than that in the control group (OR 2.33 [95% CI 1.37-3.96]), and that in the pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) group was 2.60 times greater than that in the control group (OR 2.60 [95% CI 1.29-5.27]). Similarly, the fusion rate in the capacitive coupling (CC) electrical stimulation group was 3.44 times greater than that in the control group (OR 3.44 [95% CI 1.75-6.75]), indicating that regardless of the type of electrical stimulation, the fusion rate after spinal surgery improved to a certain extent. Electrical stimulation as an adjuvant therapy seems to improve the fusion rate after spinal surgery to a certain extent, but the specific effectiveness of this therapy needs to be further studied.

Indexed as

Spinal FusionElectric StimulationElectric Stimulation TherapyHumansSpinal DiseasesTreatment OutcomeElectrical stimulationFusion rateSpinal surgerySystematic review and meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID39278993

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.