SynthesisJoint diseases and related surgery2026
Efficacy and safety of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 biomaterials in promoting bone regeneration: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Joint diseases and related surgery, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) in promoting bone regeneration. MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus was conducted from inception to May 2024. Fifteen randomized-controlled trials involving 2,137 cases were included. Traditional and network meta-analyses were performed, machine learning techniques were applied to explore heterogeneity, and subgroup analyses were carried out to assess efficacy across anatomical sites including alveolar sockets, palatal clefts, and spinal fusion.
resultsNo significant difference was found in the overall bone healing rate between the rhBMP-2 and control groups (relative risk [RR] = 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-1.20). However, rhBMP-2 demonstrated a significant advantage in spinal fusion (RR = 1.09, 95% CI 1.01-1.17) and a positive, although not statistically significant, trend in small oral and jaw bone defects. The incidence of serious adverse events was comparable (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.66-1.42). Network meta-analysis indicated that the overall success rate of bone regeneration with rhBMP-2 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.53, 95% CI 0.54-4.33) and other bone substitutes (OR = 1.42, 95% CI 0.39-5.21) did not significantly exceed autograft treatment, although both showed a trend toward superiority. Direct pairwise comparison revealed that rhBMP-2 was significantly more effective than autograft (OR = 1.54, 95% CI 1.02-2.33, p < 0.05), with low heterogeneity (I
conclusionWhile the overall healing rate was comparable to controls, rhBMP-2 showed significant efficacy in spinal fusion and a favorable safety profile. Its effectiveness was context-specific, influenced by anatomical site and patient factors. These findings support the selective use of rhBMP-2 in specific clinical contexts such as spinal surgery, while further research is needed to optimize its application in other indications.
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.