ReviewBrain & spine2025
The management of odontoid fractures through the lens of evolution in classification schemes: A systematic review with illustrative case examples.
Review in Brain & spine, 2025. 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.
- Fatal vertebral artery pseudoaneurysm following intracranial migration of an odontoid screw: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2025Article
- Emerging advances in spinal cord injury: An introductory overview.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- The surgical treatment of upper cervical spine trauma in octogenerians.Brain & spine · 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
Introduction: Odontoid fractures account for approximately 15% of all cervical spine fractures. Despite numerous classification systems, controversy persists regarding the ideal treatment of these fractures, especially in elderly and medically frail patients. Research question: This article aims to provide a systematic review of odontoid fracture classifications and assess their clinical applicability. Material and methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases using the terms "odontoid", "fracture", and "classification". Articles published between 1974 and 2024 were analyzed and those containing odontoid fracture classifications were included. Results: Four hundred and fifty-seven articles were identified, and 32 were selected for detailed investigation. Seven articles were selected after reviewing the full text, and four additional articles cited in the references were included, from which two were published before 1974. A total of eleven classification systems were found in the literature. The classifications were based on the position and direction of the fracture line, displacement, angulation, embryology, and odontoid anatomy. The AO Spine Classification System was among the more recent frameworks reviewed and analyzes the presence of ligamentous injury or translation. Discussion and conclusions: Anderson and D'Alonzo, Roy-Camille, Grauer, and the AO Spine Classification System are the most commonly applied in clinical practice. However, existing systems lack specific considerations for osteoporosis and the medical frailty of elderly patients, who constitute a substantial portion of cases. Future classification systems should address these factors to better guide treatment for this population.
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.