SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2026
Comparison of skip-level ACDF vs. contiguous ACDF in the treatment of skip-level cervical degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 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
Background: The selection of surgical regimens for skip-level cervical degenerative disease (CDD) has long been controversial, with a core focus on whether intact intervertebral discs at intermediate levels should be preserved. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the clinical and radiological outcomes as well as complication rates between skip-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and contiguous ACDF for skip-level CDD. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 Statement. The PubMed, Web of Science core collection, Embase (via Ovid), CNKI and WanFang databases were systematically searched from inception to November 30, 2025. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted via Review Manager 5.3. Results: Five studies with 116 patients in the skip-level ACDF group and 158 patients in the contiguous ACDF group were included. The surgical time [MD: -42.18, 95% CI (-50.91, -33.45), I Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that skip-level ACDF can reduce surgical time and intraoperative blood loss. Current evidence does not reveal a statistically significant increase in adjacent segment degeneration following skip-level ACDF. However, the available evidence remains limited. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251243686, Identifier CRD420251243686.
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.