ReviewCureus2025
Dural Sealants in Spine Surgery: A Scientometric Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This research aims to systematically and comprehensively evaluate the publication, citation, collaboration, and evolution of topics in dural sealants for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage in spine surgery publications. The study systematically mined publications from the Web of Science in January 2023 using the keywords (dural sealant) AND (cerebrospinal fluid) AND (spine surgery). No exclusion criteria were used in the search. The analysis was divided into publication, citation, collaboration, and text-co-occurrence network analysis. R Studio and VOSviewer were used for data management, analysis, and visualization. A total of 56 documents published between 2002 and 2022 were analyzed. The countries with the most publications were the United States of America (39.62%), Italy (9.43%), and Japan (9.43%). Total citations for all publications were 859, with an overall H-index of 15. Institutions from South Korea, India, China, and the United States of America were found to have previous collaborations on the topic. In addition, neurosurgery publications had four clusters of co-occurring keywords, which include (i) neurological deficit, polyethylene glycol, efficacy, and safety; (ii) dural defect, prevention, CSF leak; (iii) postoperative CSF leak and dural tear; and (iv) prolene, fibrin sealant, and watertight closure. In terms of evolution, publications focused initially on the types of sealants but are currently focusing more on the effects of these sealants on different outcomes. This study provided an overview of the scientific output, trends, and research topics in dural sealant for CSF leakage for spine surgery publications worldwide. More research is still needed using varied designs and more subjects on this topic. Results may serve as a valuable guide for researchers, practitioners, and educators to find the future direction of the research agenda and projects about using dural sealant to prevent CSF leak in spine surgeries.
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.