ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2025
A step-by-step guide for designing systematic reviews in spine surgery: a narrative review.
Review in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential tools in spine surgery, providing a rigorous method for synthesizing evidence from multiple studies to guide clinical decision-making. These reviews help address conflicting outcomes across studies and enhance statistical power, making them invaluable for evaluating the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions. The purpose of this review is to outline how to design and conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis specifically in the field of spine surgery. Methods: A preliminary search was performed across several key databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, to identify relevant literature on spine surgery. The search strategy, search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and screening process were detailed to ensure a comprehensive and standardized approach. This was followed by a narrative integration to synthesize and highlight significant trends, innovations, and gaps within the field. Key Content and Findings: Systematic reviews in spine surgery are conducted through a standardized and repeatable approach to search for, evaluate, and synthesize information. At the top of the evidence-based hierarchy, systematic reviews can represent the most compelling evidence when they include high-quality research, combining outcomes from multiple primary studies into comprehensive findings. When augmented with a meta-analysis that employs statistical techniques to join the results of three or more studies, systematic reviews become invaluable tools for addressing research questions. Conclusions: This first installment focuses on the development of a research question and methods for sourcing and screening relevant databases. A forthcoming companion manuscript will detail the execution phase, including quality assessment, risk of bias, and meta-analysis techniques tailored to spine surgery. The databases most frequently utilized for identifying studies are PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science. While not exhaustive, this document aims to serve as an introductory resource for those interested in undertaking or critically evaluating systematic reviews and meta-analyses within the domain of spine surgery.
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.