ReviewGlobal spine journal2026
How Common is Dysphagia After Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery, What Drives it, and Can it be Prevented? An Umbrella Review of Systematic Evidence.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study DesignUmbrella systematic review.ObjectiveTo critically appraise and synthesise the existing systematic review evidence regarding incidence, risk factors, management strategies, and prognostic impact of dysphagia in patients undergoing anterior cervical spine surgery(ACSS), with interpretation explicitly weighted by methodological confidence.MethodsA systematic search (inception-November 2025) of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating dysphagia after ACDF, ACCF, CDA, or multilevel ACSS. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. Methodological quality was appraised using AMSTAR-2. Findings were synthesised narratively at the umbrella level and interpreted proportionate to the confidence of evidence.ResultsThirty-two systematic reviews (>3.6 million patients) were included. Dysphagia incidence ranged from 1%-79% (variations largely driven by heterogeneous definitions and timepoints). Early postoperative (≤2 weeks) dysphagia was common (up to 71%); whereas persistent dysphagia (≥12 months) was reported in 12-14% in selected analyses. Female sex, multilevel procedures, C3-C4 involvement, anterior plating, and rhBMP-2 exposure were recurrently associated with increased risk. In contrast, zero-profile implants, cuff-pressure control, and perioperative steroids were associated with reduced early dysphagia in low-confidence reviews. However, 31/32 reviews were rated critically low confidence by AMSTAR-2 grading, limiting certainty. Only one RCT-based steroid meta-analysis achieved low confidence.ConclusionDysphagia is frequently reported following ACSS, particularly in the early postoperative period. No preventive or therapeutic strategy can currently be recommended as standard of care based on high-certainty evidence. Most findings remain hypothesis-generating and require validation in high-quality prospective studies.
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.