ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Association of the GAP score and roussouly-based algorithm with long-term patient-reported outcomes following adult spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Global Alignment and Proportion (GAP) score and Roussouly-based alignment algorithms were originally developed to predict postoperative mechanical complications and outcomes following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. While these frameworks have been extensively studied in relation to mechanical complications, their association with long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) remains incompletely defined. The aim of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze whether these frameworks are associated with long-term PROMs following ASD surgery.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception through February 2026. Studies were included if they evaluated postoperative alignment using the GAP score and/or a Roussouly-based restoration framework in patients undergoing ASD surgery, reported validated PROMs, and had ≥ 24-month follow-up. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to pool mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
resultsEight retrospective cohort studies were included. ODI was reported in all studies and SRS-22/22r in six. Compared with proportioned alignment, severely disproportioned GAP alignment was associated with worse ODI (MD, 8.08; 95% CI, 1.00-15.20; p = 0.025; I²=71%), whereas moderately disproportioned alignment showed no significant difference (MD, 2.15; 95% CI, - 3.93 to 8.23; p = 0.489; I²=70%). Severe versus moderate disproportion demonstrated worse ODI (MD, 6.71; 95% CI, 3.81-9.62; p < 0.001; I²=0%). For SRS-22r, no significant differences were observed except for worse outcomes in severe versus moderate disproportion (MD, - 0.26; 95% CI, - 0.42 to - 0.10; p = 0.001; I²=24%). Roussouly-based restoration was not associated with significant differences in ODI or SRS-22r.
conclusionSeverely disproportioned GAP alignment was associated with worse long-term disability as measured by ODI, whereas moderately disproportioned alignment was not clearly distinguishable from proportioned alignment. Roussouly-based alignment restoration was not consistently associated with improved PROMs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42581177What 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.