ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2026
Intradiscal
Article in International journal of spine 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
methodsThis prospective cohort registry study included 29 patients (53 discs: 28 cervical, 25 lumbar) undergoing discectomy. Prior to discectomy, deep tissue was irrigated with 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate (Irrisept) to suppress dermal-origin organisms. Following discectomy and before device implantation, a sterile swab was inserted into the disc space. Swabs were divided for 21-day anaerobic culture with semiquantitative grading and 16S rRNA qPCR (positivity threshold >1.04 copies/reaction). Cohen kappa, McNemar test, and Clopper-Pearson exact 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
resultsOverall disc-level prevalence was 43.4% (23/53; 95% CI: 29.8%-57.7%) by culture and 54.7% (29/53; 95% CI: 40.4%-68.4%) by qPCR. Cervical discs demonstrated significantly higher culture positivity than lumbar discs (71.4% vs 12.0%;
conclusionsCLINICAL RELEVANCE: This is the first report of disc-space swab analysis for intradiscal LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.