ReviewCureus2025
Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Cervical Disc Arthroplasty in Patients With Myelopathy and Radiculopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA), which preserves motion, has emerged as a viable alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for treating individuals suffering from cervical degenerative disc disease. The present meta-analysis was undertaken to assess both clinical and radiographic results comparing CDA against ACDF. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The analysis examined Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) measurements for cervical and upper extremity pain, frequencies of revision surgery, and adjacent segment disease (ASD). Random-effects models calculated pooled effect estimates. The I² statistic quantified heterogeneity, while funnel plot examination and Egger's test evaluated publication bias. The analysis incorporated 11 RCTs encompassing 2,537 patients. CDA demonstrated significant NDI improvement (standard mean difference (SMD) = -0.54, 95% CI: -1.00 to -0.08, p = 0.02, I² = 89%), neck pain reduction (SMD = -0.58, p = 0.004, I² = 86%), and arm pain alleviation (SMD = -0.44, p = 0.006, I² = 76%) relative to ACDF. Reoperation frequencies decreased with CDA (OR = 0.40, p = 0.0004, I² = 70%), alongside substantially diminished ASD risk (OR = 0.36, p < 0.00001, I² = 67%). Publication bias remained undetected. In conclusion, compared to ACDF, CDA provides superior outcomes in pain relief, functional recovery, and prevention of reoperation and ASD. CDA should be considered a preferred option in suitable patients.
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.