ArticleGlobal spine journal2026
Global Variation in Fusion Assessment Practices Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.
Article 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study DesignCross-sectional survey.ObjectivesTo characterize global variation in imaging modalities, fusion criteria, and decision-making practices for assessing fusion following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).MethodsA modified 30-item survey using Delphi-informed methodology was distributed to global cervical spine experts selected by research impact. Response rate was 40%. Items addressed surgeon demographics, preferred fixation and interbody techniques, bracing protocols, imaging strategies, and perceived strength of evidence for fusion assessment criteria. Responses were analyzed descriptively.ResultsSubstantial variation was observed in imaging preferences and fusion criteria. Most surgeons preferred plate fixation for both 1-2 level ACDF (mean 71%) and 3-4 level ACDF (mean 92%). Metallic cages were the most frequently used interbody devices, with mean preferences of 40% for 1-2 levels and 42% for 3-4 levels. Fusion status and patient satisfaction were the primary determinants of follow-up duration. Flexion-extension radiographs and CT were the most frequently used modalities. The strongest endorsed criteria for fusion were <1 mm interspinous motion, <5° angular motion, and graft bridging bone ≥2 mm on CT, though up to 20% of surgeons still rated these measures as moderate or poor evidence. While 77.8% endorsed the need for standardized criteria, only half were aware of existing guidelines.ConclusionsAlthough commonly used measures such as <1mm interspinous motion, <5° angular motion, and CT-based extra-graft bridging bone are supported by prior studies, the absence of standardized diagnostic criteria limits confidence in their validity and highlights the urgent need for a universally accepted, evidence-based standard for fusion after ACDF.
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.