ReviewGlobal spine journal2026
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Osteobiologics in Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Global spine journal, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study DesignNetwork Meta-Analysis.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of osteobiologics used in posterior lumbar spinal fusion (LSF) for degenerative lumbar disorders, setting autologous iliac crest bone graft (AICBG) as the reference standard.MethodsA systematic search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating osteobiologics in adult patients undergoing posterior LSF was performed. Primary outcomes were radiologic fusion and osteobiologic-related complications. Secondary outcomes included disability, low back pain, operative time, blood loss, and length of stay (LOS). A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed. Meta-regression was employed to assess the influence of surgical technique on primary outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed with the GRADE framework.ResultsThirty-five RCTs including 2298 patients were analyzed. Compared with AICBG, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) showed significantly higher fusion rates (OR 3.86; 95% CI 2.60-5.74;
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.