ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2025
To What Extent Do Different Criteria Influence 3-Month Fusion Evaluation in Anterior Cervical Arthrodesis Trials?
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- To What Extent Do Different Criteria Influence 3-Month Fusion Evaluation in Anterior Cervical Arthrodesis Trials?Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMultiple imaging criteria are available for assessing fusion following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). In clinical trials, the 3-month postoperative follow-up serves as a critical timepoint for evaluating the efficacy of interventions on accelerating the fusion process. This study aims to determine how applying different fusion criteria influences the conclusions of a comparative analysis.
methodsPatients aged 18 or older who underwent ACDF with allograft or beta-tricalcium phosphate artificial bone between C3 and C7 were reviewed from 1 April 2023 to 30 September 2023. Fusion rates between the two grafts at three-month follow-up were compared under different criteria. Fusion status was judged by CT or dynamic radiographs, or their combinations. Cut-offs of dynamic indicators included angle changes of 4°, 3°, and 2°, and interspinous motion of 3, 2, and 1 mm. Criteria were applied singly, combined in pairs, or combined in groups of three, leading to a total of 31 criteria. Student's t-test and Chi-squared test were employed, and Cohen's kappa coefficient and phi coefficient were calculated.
resultsNinety-eight segments were included. Twenty-five criteria yielded higher fusion rates for artificial bone, with 7 out of 25 reaching statistical significance (p < 0.05). The remaining six criteria led to a reversed result, but none reached significance (p > 0.05). The agreement and correlation between CT and dynamic criteria were poor (kappa and phi < 0.200). In contrast, the agreement and correlation between two dynamic indicators were better, and even being close to moderate (kappa = 0.398, phi = 0.398) between 3° and 2 mm.
conclusionChanges in fusion criteria affected result significance but did not produce conflicting conclusions. There was a significant disagreement between the results under CT and dynamic radiographs criteria. Thresholds of 3° or 2 mm can be optimal choices for dynamic criteria.
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.