ReviewNorth American Spine Society journal2022
Does conflict of interest affect the reported fusion rates of bone graft substitutes and extenders?
Review in North American Spine Society journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Outcome Measurement of iFactor/ABM/P-15 in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review.Global spine journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Bone graft extenders are being used more in spine surgery as a substitute for iliac crest bone graft. However, potential conflict of interest could impact average fusion rates. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether fusion rates reported in the literature were different in papers evaluating bone graft substitutes and extenders when there was potential conflict of interest versus no potential conflict of interest. Methods: Pubmed was searched for studies evaluating fusion rates when bone graft extenders including demineralized bone matrix, hydroxyapatite, and tricalcium sulfate were used. Studies were screened for one or two level fusions and for degenerative spinal conditions. The average fusion rates of subgroups were compared using unpaired Student's t-tests. Results: 1928 studies were evaluated. 86 studies were included in the study. The fusion rates varied from 4 to 100%. There were 24 studies with a potential conflict of interest and 62 studies with no conflict of interest. The average fusion rate of all the studies was 84.63% with standard deviation of 18.33%. The average fusion rates of those studies with conflict of interest was 80.93% versus 86.06% without conflict of interest. This was not statistically significant (p>0.07). The average fusion rate of studies evaluated by CT scan was 79.8% versus 87.9% without CT. The average fusion rate of studies that employed an independent reviewer to evaluate the fusion was 82.61% versus 85.63% for studies with no independent reviewer. Conclusion: There is a great variability in the reported fusion rates of bone graft extenders. Counter to expectations, average fusion rates were lower in the studies where there was a potential conflict of interest. The use of CT scans and an independent reviewer seem to account for the lower reported fusion rates, and may be a means of negating the potential conflicts of interest in fusion studies. Level of Evidence: 2.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.