ReviewActa ortopedica brasileira2025
BIOABSORBABLE CAGES IN SPINAL FUSION IN AN ANIMAL MODEL: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.
Review in Acta ortopedica brasileira, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the efficacy of bioabsorbable interbody cages in comparison with conventional techniques in animal models, with emphasis on the impact of follow-up time on developments. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed including 11 studies on the use of bioabsorbable cages in comparison with conventional techniques. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated for range of motion (ROM), and heterogeneity was assessed by Cochran's Q test. Descriptive statistical analyses and hypothesis tests were performed to evaluate the parameters of fusion rate, intervertebral disc height and ROM. The 11 studies included totaled 244 animals. The analysis revealed a cumulative OR of 1.70 for ROM and fusion rate in the first four months of follow-up. No significant differences were found in height parameters in the study follow-ups. Heterogeneity among studies was low, indicating consistency in the results. The analysis suggests that bioabsorbable cages have advantages in periods of less than four months, and that there is no inferiority in the results in follow-up periods longer than four months in terms of fusion rate, ROM and intervertebral height in long-term experimental studies, and further research is needed to determine their clinical applicability.
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.