ArticleBioinformation2025
Comparative evaluation of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and instrumented posterolateral fusion in Grade I/II Spondylolisthesis: A prospective study.
Article in Bioinformation, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal surgical approach between Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) and Posterolateral Fusion (PLF) for Grade I/II spondylolisthesis remains unclear. Therefore, it is of interest to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of TLIF versus PLF in patients with Grade I/II spondylolisthesis. PLF achieved better 6-month functional outcomes (ODI 12.95 ± 2.54 vs 17.83 ± 1.95, p<0.001) and greater slip reduction (48.45% vs 40.20%, p<0.001). TLIF provided superior early leg pain relief at 3 months (VAS 2.03 ± 0.80 vs 2.50 ± 0.91, p=0.015) and better DPQ scores. Complication and fusion rates were similar between groups. Both techniques are effective, with choice guided by patient profile and clinical priorities.
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.