ReviewCureus2025
A Systematic Review Evaluating the Surgical Management of Cervical Spine Fractures in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) are vulnerable to cervical spinal fractures despite minute trauma. As there is a lack of consensus on which surgical approach is the most efficacious in treating cervical spinal fractures in AS patients, we sought to compare the posterior-only and combined (anterior-posterior) approach regarding intraoperative and postoperative complications. This systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (ID: CRD42024284877). Studies published up to May 20, 2025, were searched in PubMed, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) with predetermined terms. Studies reporting outcomes, including intraoperative and postoperative complications and mortality rate, were evaluated. Included studies underwent a risk of bias assessment. Seventeen studies (one prospective, 16 retrospective) involving 858 patients (with AS and cervical spine fractures) with an average age of 59.9 years were included. The most common mechanism of injury was minor trauma (173, 66%), and C6-7 was the most common level injured (185, 50.6%). Although the posterior-only approach yielded fewer intraoperative complications (4 (4.8%) vs. 2 (15%); p>0.05), postoperative complications (17 (7.5%) vs. 16 (22.6%); p>0.05), and instrument-related complications (1 (2.8%) vs. 3 (12.5%); p>0.05) compared to the combined approach, the difference was not statistically significant. However, the combined approach recorded a significantly lower mortality rate (3 (9.2%) vs. 13 (24.5%); p>0.05) when compared with the posterior-only approach. The results of this systematic review suggest that both the combined and posterior-only approaches have advantages and disadvantages and approach selection should be done on a case-by-case basis. Future randomized controlled trials directly evaluating the efficacy of surgical approaches in such patients are needed to form a consensus.
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.