Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41066602›Full record

ReviewGlobal spine journal2026

Adverse Impact of Smoking on Spine Fusion and Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

P M Arnold, J S Harrop, G Mariscal, R C Sasso, M P Steinmetz, C D Chaput, W B Jacobs, C D Witiw, J E O'Toole

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global spine journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

9 authors.

P M ArnoldDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4622-7695
J S HarropDepartments of Neurological and Orthopedic Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
G MariscalInstitute for Research on Musculoskeletal Disorders, Valencia Catholic University, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5166-198X
R C SassoDept Orthopaedic Surgery, Indiana Spine Group, Indiana University School of Medicine, Carmel, IN, USA.
M P SteinmetzNeurological Institute, Department of Neurosurgery, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA.
C D ChaputDepartment of Orthopedics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
W B JacobsCalgary Spine Program, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
C D WitiwDivision of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
J E O'TooleRush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Study designSystematic review and meta-analysis.ObjectiveThis systematic review with meta-analysis is aimed at evaluating the impact of smoking (tobacco) on spinal fusion rates and the resulting PROMs.MethodsFollowing the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted in 4 databases. Studies focused on adult smokers vs non-smokers undergoing spinal fusion. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for dichotomous variables and mean differences or standardized mean differences for continuous variables. The primary outcomes assessed were non-union/pseudoarthrosis incidence and PROMs.ResultsA total of 29 studies were included in this analysis. The unadjusted incidence of pseudoarthrosis was significantly higher in smokers than in non-smokers (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.55-2.52,

Indexed as

meta-analysisnon-unionpatient-reported outcomespseudoarthrosissmokingspinal fusion

Identifiers

PMID41066602
PMCPMC12510999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.