Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41031628›Full record

ArticleEFORT open reviews2025

Progress in diagnosis and treatment of primary spondylodiscitis: a systematic literature review.

Dongdong Yu, Yongjian Kang, Wenxin Lu, Bin Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFORT open reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Spinal infections.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Dongdong Yu
Yongjian Kang
Wenxin Lu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Primary spondylodiscitis poses significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenges, with delayed diagnosis or improper treatment potentially resulting in severe complications. This systematic review aimed to summarize the latest diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for primary spondylodiscitis. Methods: Adhering to PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we conducted a systematic literature review. PubMed was comprehensively searched for English-language original studies from January 1, 1990, to October 31, 2024. Structured queries combined keywords and MeSH terms relevant to spondylodiscitis, vertebral osteomyelitis, spinal infection, and associated treatments. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, with manual bibliography searches as a supplement. A total of 147 articles were finally included. Results: The literature indicates that diagnosis can be based on clinical suspicion, using serological, radiological, and microbiological tests. Newer methods such as metagenomics next-generation sequencing (mNGS) and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) can enhance diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. For confirmed cases, appropriate antibiotic therapy is crucial. Surgical treatment can benefit patients with neurological deficits, sepsis, spinal instability/deformity, epidural abscesses, or failed conservative treatment, accelerating recovery and reducing complications. Minimally invasive surgical approaches may also serve as an alternative to open surgery for select patients. Conclusion: Although new technologies have improved diagnostic accuracy and treatment success rates for primary spondylodiscitis, establishing a robust staging system is vital to ensure patients receive effective, evidence-based treatment options.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencemetagenomics next generation sequencingprimary spondylodiscitis

Identifiers

PMID41031628
PMCPMC12495883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.