SynthesisNeurosurgical review2026
Decompression alone versus decompression with fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: evaluating the overlapping meta-analyses.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 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.
- Degenerative lumbosacral spondylolisthesis: Instability as the primary pathology and stabilization as definitive treatment. Experience with 28 cases treated by only fixation without any decompression.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
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
backgroundAlthough many meta-analyses have compared decompression alone with decompression combined with fusion for treating lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS), their conclusions remain inconsistent. This study aims to analyze these overlapping meta-analyses to provide clinicians with access to the most reliable evidence, thereby enabling informed treatment recommendations for LDS based on the best available data.
methodsWe performed a comprehensive search for relevant meta-analyses published up to December 20, 2025 across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. The methodological quality of these studies was evaluated using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and the Oxford Levels of Evidence. The Jadad decision algorithm was utilized to determine the most credible evidence review.
resultsThirteen meta-analyses were included in this study, with AMSTAR scores ranging from 5 to 11 (mean = 8.46, median = 9, SD = 1.56). Quantitative analysis revealed a very low degree of primary study overlap (Corrected Covered Area, CCA = 0.066), indicating that these reviews were based on largely distinct sets of primary evidence. Upon rigorous evaluation, the study by Kaiser et al. was identified as providing the most robust evidence (AMSTAR score: 11/11). Their pooled results indicated no statistically significant differences between decompression alone and decompression with fusion for key clinical outcomes: ODI (MD: 0.86; 95% CI: -4.53 to 6.26), VAS for back pain (MD: -5.92; 95% CI: -11.00 to -0.84), VAS for leg pain (MD: -1.25; 95% CI: -6.71 to 4.21), and reoperation rates (OR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.7 to 2.17). However, decompression alone was associated with significantly shorter operative time (MD: -93.97 minutes; 95% CI: -125.44 to -62.50), less intraoperative blood loss (MD: -320.55 mL; 95% CI: -389.61 to -251.49), and a reduced hospital stay (MD: -1.7 days; 95% CI: -1.75 to -1.65).
conclusionThis study, which examines overlapping meta-analyses comparing decompression with and without fusion for LDS, indicates that currently available evidence does not support any benefits of adding fusion to decompression in treating LDS. Nevertheless, further subgroup analysis is necessary to ascertain which LDS patients might benefit from the addition of fusion to decompression.
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.