ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Comparative analysis of minimally invasive endoscopic versus conventional open posterior brucellosis lesion removal in the treatment of brucellosis spondylitis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of minimally invasive versus conventional open posterior methods for the excision of brucellosis lesions in the context of spondylitis treatment. The findings are intended to inform and guide clinical practice. Methods: Forty-three patients with brucellosis spondylitis who attended our hospital from January 2020 to June 2023 were selected and divided into minimally invasive endoscopic brucellosis lesion removal (group A) Results: ① There were no statistically significant differences ( Conclusion: The results of this study showed that minimally invasive endoscopic brucellosis lesion removal could achieve the same efficacy as compared with traditional open posterior lesion removal, but minimally invasive surgery has the advantages of shorter operative time, lower intraoperative hemorrhage and more obvious advantages in postoperative rehabilitation, etc., which makes it clinically feasible and effective procedure.
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.