ReviewCureus2024
Reducing Dysphagia Following Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery: Insights From a Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Bibliometric study of research trends in dysphagia complicating following anterior cervical spine surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Full-Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Decompression Versus Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- Symptom clusters and symptom network analysis of patients after anterior cervical spine surgery: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A retrospective comparative analysis of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using stand-alone titanium cage versus cage and plate fixation in two-level cervical disc herniation.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies. The analysis focused on the influence of surgical duration, the number of cervical levels treated, and implant types. A total of 21 studies were included, and heterogeneity among studies was evaluated using the I² statistic. The results indicated that longer surgeries, multi-level procedures, and certain implant designs were associated with an increased risk of dysphagia. In contrast, low-profile implants and stand-alone cage systems demonstrated a reduced risk compared to traditional plate-and-cage constructs. Anterior plates and specific cage designs were linked to higher dysphagia rates. The findings suggest that the risk of dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS) is influenced by the length of surgery, the number of motion segments treated, and implant design. Optimizing these factors could help reduce postoperative complications and improve patient outcomes.
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.