ReviewJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine
Outcomes of lumbar fusion surgery in isthmic versus degenerative spondylolisthesis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lumbar spondylolisthesis can cause a significant disability due to back and lower extremity pain. Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) and isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS) are the two most common types. DS results from arthritic changes and degenerative disc disease, whereas IS occurs secondary to a pars interarticularis defect. This study compared surgical outcomes between IS and DS. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Twenty studies comprising 3136 patients were included (DS: 1944; IS: 1192). No differences were identified in terms of estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD]: 5.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 42.88, 54.46;
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.