ReviewTurkish journal of medical sciences2025
Synthetic osteobiologics in spine surgery: a review.
Review in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 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.
- Effects of DRG pulsed radiofrequency parameters on the clinical outcome for battered sensory never syndrome: a prospective, triple-blind, randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Oblique lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation in a single lateral position for degenerative lumbar diseases.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Exosome-functionalized alginate/gelatin composite scaffolds: synergistic enhancement of osteogenic differentiation for bone tissue engineering.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Osteobiologics are increasingly used in orthopedics and spine surgery to facilitate bone healing and prevent nonunion. Synthetic osteobiologics are artificial materials crafted in laboratories that aim to replicate the natural composition and functionality of bone. Notable materials such as calcium phosphate and calcium sulfate are engineered to mirror the mineral aspect of bone. They mimic human bone functionality, exhibiting osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and osteogenic properties. These characteristics promote cell attachment, migration, recruitment, and differentiation. Consequently, synthetic osteobiologics (osteoconductive grafts) have been introduced in bone fracture repair. The main strength of synthetic osteobiologics in spine surgery lies in improving fusion rates and clinical outcomes. The commercial biologics landscape boasts an excess of 350 bone substitute materials, a number that continues to grow exponentially with the development of subtypes. However, the proliferation of these products, primarily driven by the medical device industry and nonacademic entities, has been accompanied by a significant dearth of supporting empirical data. This deficiency underscores the imperative need for rigorous scrutiny and research to establish a solid foundation for their utilization. Healthcare professionals require high-quality research in large prospective studies with satisfactory follow-up periods to interpret and compare the performance of osteobiologics. It is particularly imperative to study the added cost of using these materials in spine surgery. In the current review, we provide an overview of the currently available synthetic osteobiologics used in spine surgery.
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.