SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Prevalence of os odontoideum: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression with implications for vertebral artery and osseous anomalies.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOs Odontoideum (OO) is an anatomical anomaly of the craniocervical junction, which may lead to severe instability, resulting in potentially fatal spinal cord compression. Considering clinical improtance of OO, the aim of this study was to provide a thorough synthesis of data on its epidemiology, specifically regarding its prevalence with neurosurgical considerations.
methodsThe major electronic databases (Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, ScienceDirect) were thoroughly searched up to July 18th, 2025. Studies reporting original data on the prevalence of OO were deemed eligible for inclusion. The extracted data subsequently underwent qualitative assessment. A random effects model based on the DerSimonian-Laird approach was employed. The AQUA tool was used to evaluate the quality and risk of bias of the included studies.
resultsOf the initial 1,638 records, 19 studies (n = 18,521 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies revealed "low" risk of bias. The lowest prevalence of OO was found in the general population (0.21%, 95%CI: 0.00-0.72, I
conclusionsOO is rare among the general population. However, its prevalence is significantly higher in individuals with craniofacial malformations or 21 trisomy. Knowledge of the epidemiology of OO may facilitate earlier and more accurate diagnosis, particularly in high-risk patient populations. However, substantial heterogeneity warrants cautious interpretation. In pursuance of establishing the odds ratio, a greater number of case-control studies should be conducted.
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.