SynthesisPeerJ2025
Safety of outpatient
Synthesis in PeerJ, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate and compare the safety of outpatient and inpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) regarding complications and related outcomes. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched for retrospective cohort studies published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2024, comparing outpatient and inpatient ACDF. Pooled relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Study quality and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and GRADE, respectively. Results: A total of 21 studies involving 164,541 patients (36,361 outpatient and 128,180 inpatient) were included. Outpatient ACDF resulted in significantly lower incidence of overall complications (RR 0.45, 95% CI [0.35-0.57]), mortality (RR 0.35, 95% CI [0.16-0.77]), deep vein thrombosis (RR 0.56, 95% CI [0.37-0.85]), and wound complications (RR 0.59, 95% CI [0.52-0.68]). Reduced risks were also observed for unplanned reoperations (RR 0.33, 95% CI [0.24-0.46]), readmissions (RR 0.57, 95% CI [0.46-0.70]), and pulmonary complications (RR 0.43, 95% CI [0.27-0.68]). Risks of stroke, dysphagia, hematoma, and renal and cardiac complications were comparable between the groups. The certainty of evidence was rated low to very low due to high heterogeneity, retrospective study designs, and indirectness. Conclusion: Outpatient ACDF is associated with fewer complications as compared to inpatient procedures for carefully selected patients. However, the retrospective nature of the studies, the possibility of selection bias, and low-certainty evidence underscore the need for high-quality prospective research to validate these results and inform clinical practice.
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.