SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Differences in radiographic and clinical outcomes of different oblique lumbar interbody fusions for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A finite element-based comparative dynamic biomechanical study of a novel oblique lateral locking plate system (OLLPS) versus traditional internal fixations for oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) under whole-body vibration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
To systematically evaluate the differences in the clinical efficacy of lumbar degenerative disorders (LDDs) treatment between oblique lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (OLIF-PF), OLIF stand-alone (OLIF-SA), and OLIF with anterolateral screw fixation (OLIF-AF). A systematic search was conducted on both English and Chinese databases, wherein the literature was screened based on title, abstract, and full text. Literature that met the inclusion criteria was assessed for quality and relevant information was extracted. The main outcome indicators were recorded and Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed. A thorough evaluation was conducted on the 12 papers that satisfied the inclusion criteria. Among these articles, 5 studies compared OLIF-PF with OLIF-SA, 5 studies compared OLIF-PF with OLIF-AF, and 2 studies compared OLIF-PF, OLIF-SA, and OLIF-AF. According to the included articles, a total of 758 people were treated with OLIF surgery (341 individuals covered in OLIF-PF group, 288 individuals covered in OLIF-SA group, and 129 individuals covered in OLIF-129 group). Pooled analysis showed that OLIF-PF performed better in terms of imaging outcomes compared to OLIF-SA and OLIF-AF. However, in terms of surgical duration and intraoperative blood loss, OLIF-PF showed a significant disadvantage compared to the other two surgical procedures. The ODI scores exhibited a preference for OLIF-AF, indicating a marginal superiority of OLIF-AF with regard to clinical outcomes. It is advisable for physicians to carefully select the most suitable OLIF procedure, taking into account their expertise and the individual requirements of each patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39883206What 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.