SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Continuity of care in lumbar disc herniation: a systematic review and meta-analysis providing a deeper look into postoperative efficacy.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lumbar disk herniation is a prevalent spinal disorder. Continuity of care ensures seamless, coordinated, and high-quality management across healthcare transitions to optimize outcomes and reduce readmission risk. Insufficient structured postoperative care programs after diskharge may hinder recovery, lower quality of life, and increase complication risks. Objectives: This study aims to explore the significance of continuity of care in enhancing the recovery outcomes of patients with lumbar disk herniation post-surgery through a meta-analysis. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted an extensive search across several databases, including MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, CINAHL, EBSCO, Cochrane Library and Scopus, without restrictions on language or publication date. A meta-analysis was performed using both fixed-effects and random-effects models based on heterogeneity assessment. We analyzed the data using R software version 4.2.2 and Stata software version 15.1. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), funnel plots, sensitivity analysis, Egger's test, and Begg's test. Results: This study included a total of 15 studies, involving 1,804 participants. The meta-analysis results showed that the experimental group had significantly lower Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) scores 3 months post-operation compared to the conventional control group [SMD = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.91, -0.41), SMD = -0.91, 95%CI (-1.24, -0.58), SMD = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.91, -0.31), Conclusion: Our meta-analysis indicates that continued care interventions significantly alleviate postoperative pain, enhance lumbar function, reduce anxiety, and improve overall functional recovery in LDH patients. High-quality continued care interventions are critical strategies for enhancing postoperative recovery outcomes. Nonetheless, as the included primary studies predominantly originate from China, further validation of these findings in diverse regions and populations is warranted in future research. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024604420.
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.