SynthesisPloS one2026
The association between smoking and clinical outcomes among spondylodesis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2026. 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.
- Cluster analysis identifies high-risk phenotypic groups for revision following 1-3 level lumbar fusion in a disadvantaged inner-city population.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effects of smoking on outcomes after spinal spondylodesis remain unclear due to conflicting findings in the existing literature. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between smoking and clinical as well as radiological outcomes following instrumented spinal fusion, and to examine differences based on smoking status, spinal region, and surgical extent.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched up to August 2024 for comparative studies reporting outcomes in smokers and non-smokers undergoing spinal fusion. Extracted outcomes included clinical scores (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Neck Disability Index [NDI], Visual Analog Scale [VAS] for pain), fusion rates, pseudoarthrosis, and complications. Pooled percent mean change from baseline and weighted incidences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed by spinal region, number of operated levels, and smoking history (current, former, never).
resultsTwenty-nine studies involving 6,687 patients were included. In most outcome measures, smokers showed smaller percent improvements than non-smokers. For instance, NDI improved by 42.8% (95% CI: 25.4-60.1%) in smokers vs. 49.7% (32.4-64.0%) in non-smokers; ODI improved by 48.6% (34.7-62.5%) vs. 56.5% (42.6-70.3%); and VAS back pain by 55.0% (29.7-80.2%) vs. 60.5% (35.2-85.7%). Fusion rates were lower in smokers (86.8%) than in non-smokers (95.1%), while pseudoarthrosis was more common in smokers (17.2% vs. 7.3%). Subgroup analyses revealed similar trends across spinal regions and surgical scope. A hierarchical pattern was observed, with never-smokers experiencing the most favorable outcomes, followed by former smokers.
conclusionIn most instances, smokers appeared to experience worse outcomes following instrumented spinal procedures compared to non-smokers, and a hierarchical pattern was notable, with current smokers experiencing the worst outcomes, followed by former smokers compared to never-smokers. Future well-designed studies with proper adjustment for confounding are needed to further confirm these findings.
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.