SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Cervical disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using stand-alone cage for degenerative cervical spondylosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of cervical disc replacement (CDR) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using stand-alone cage (SAC) in single-level degenerative cervical spondylosis (DCS). We conducted a comprehensive search across four databases for articles comparing CDR with SAC in the management of DCS from inception until August 8, 2025. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata17. Seven studies were included in this analysis. In treating single-level DCS, CDR significantly demonstrated longer operative time [WMD = 26.94, 95% CI (17.88, 35.99), p < 0.01], increased blood loss [WMD = 34.94, 95% CI (15.73, 54.15), p < 0.01], higher visual analog scale scores for neck pain [WMD = 0.32, 95% CI (0.08, 0.57), p = 0.01] and arm pain [WMD = 1.05, 95% CI (0.82, 1.28), p < 0.01], as well as lower 36-item Short-Form Health Survey scores [WMD = -1.26, 95% CI (-2.04, -0.49), p < 0.01]at final follow-up compared to SAC. However, there were no significant differences between CDR and SAC regarding neck disability index, cervical curvature, reoperation rates, adverse event rates, or adjacent segment degeneration rates at last follow-up (p > 0.05). In conclusion, SAC performs better than CDR in the treatment of DCS, in terms of shortening operation time, reducing blood loss, relieving pain, and improving quality of life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41258494What 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.