ArticleBone & joint research2026
A critical review of the methodology of ovine lumbar interbody fusion studies and recommendations for future study design.
Article in Bone & joint research, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Interbody fusion stabilizes the spine by promoting bony growth between vertebrae. Large animal models have physiological and biomechanical similarities to human spines that can provide safety and efficacy data before human use. Sheep models are well validated and are the model of choice to improve understanding of fusion processes by allowing post-mortem analyses of tissues unavailable in human studies. They should be consistently designed to allow appropriate translation of the results into clinical practice. This paper investigates the methodological rigour of ovine lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) studies, and proposes recommendations for researchers designing future studies. Methods: PubMed and the Cochrane library were searched up to 20 December 2024. The search terms were 1) lumbar AND ("in vivo" OR "animal model") AND "fusion" AND (interbody OR cage OR anterior) and 2) (lumbar AND ("in vivo" OR "animal model") AND (spine OR intervertebral disc) AND (sheep OR ovine) AND fusion). Results: A total of 323 papers were identified; 48 studies were included after rejection of non-spinal references, duplicates, and non-English-language papers. Data regarding 993 animals and 1,668 fusion levels were examined. Animal ages varied from six months to nine years. Cages were used in 88% of studies, with a wide range of sizes. The commonest assessments included radiography, histology, and mechanical testing. The in-life phase of the studies varied from one week to three years. High risk of bias was evident in all papers, especially considering 1) treatment allocation sequences, 2) housing randomization, 3) blinding of caregivers, and 4) outcome assessment randomization. Conclusion: This review demonstrates variability in the design of ovine LIF studies, highlights features likely to limit the translatability of results into clinical practice (sheep age and interbody cage size), shows high risk of bias in the published literature, and makes recommendations for future studies.
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.