ArticleOrthopedic reviews2026
Is Bone Morphogenetic Protein the new Gold Standard? A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Bone Morphogenetic Protein vs Autologous Iliac Crest Bone Graft Use in Spinal Fusion.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of BMP across different spinal procedures and anatomical sites to inform decision-making in spinal fusion. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search of PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed, focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2003 and 2023. The search utilized the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms "bone morphogenetic protein," "iliac crest bone graft," and "spinal fusion."
resultsSeventeen RCTs encompassing 1,788 patients compared BMP with ICBG in terms of efficacy, quality of life, morbidity, and safety outcomes. BMP consistently achieved higher spinal fusion success rates than ICBG, particularly at 6 and 24 months, and in lumbar procedures. BMP-2 outperformed ICBG, while OP-1 showed no significant benefit. BMP also reduced operative time and showed slightly better clinical outcomes in pain, disability, and return to work. Complication rates were 15% lower with BMP, notably fewer non-unions and revision surgeries with BMP-2.
conclusionsBMP, particularly BMP-2, demonstrates superior fusion success rates, improved clinical outcomes, and lower complication rates compared to ICBG, especially in lumbar spine procedures.
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.