ReviewSpine surgery and related research2026
Technological Innovation in Cervical Spine Injury and Disease Treatment: A Systematic Bibliometric Review of Current Trends and Literature on Patent Technology.
Review in Spine surgery and related research, 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
Background: Although spine surgery has a high number of patented technologies, there has been little prior application of bibliometric analyses to effectively evaluate the technological literature in the cervical spine field. The aim of this review is to summarize and identify current patent trends in technologies for the stabilization and surgical management of cervical spine pathologies. Methods: Multiple databases were systematically queried using Lens.org to identify technology patents designed to stabilize or surgically manage cervical spine injury or disease. The patents were then ordered by forward citation count, and the top 50 unique patents were included and organized into five categories: fusion/stabilization/fixation devices, external brace/supporter devices, arthroplasty implants, surgical instruments, and spacer/expansion devices. Subsequent assessments included patent priority year, publication year, priority region, legal status, and rank. Results: The search results on March 11, 2024, yielded 440 patents published between 1973 and 2014. Of the top 50 most-cited patents, fusion/stabilization/fixation devices were the most common (27), followed by external brace/support devices (18). Patents for fusion/stabilization/fixation devices were more recent, peaking in 2001. The most common patents in the first to third quintiles were for fusion/stabilization/fixation devices. Conclusions: Most patents before 1995 were for cervical brace and supporter devices. Since the turn of the 21st century, patented surgical fusion/fixation/stabilization devices have markedly increased. Further analysis of trends in cervical spine device technology can assist in guiding future innovation efforts.
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.