ArticleRevista brasileira de ortopedia2026
[Single Level Cervical Radiculopathy with and without Fusion Technique: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis].
Article in Revista brasileira de ortopedia, 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
Objective: To objectively compare the efficacy of single-level cervical radiculopathy decompression with and without fusion, with a focus on randomized controlled trials. Methods: There were six randomized-controlled studies included in the analysis. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed, data were organized into predefined tables, and calculations were performed using the Review Manager (RevMan) software. Results: From the analysis of 726 patients (Fusion: 374, Non-fusion: 352), no significant differences were found in kyphotic rate ( Conclusions: Fusion and nonfusion techniques offer comparable efficacy for single-level cervical radiculopathy, however patient-specific considerations are needed. Level of Evidence I.
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.