Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Decompression Alone vs Decompression and Fusion: Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.
Taka, Taha M; Avetisian, Henry; El-Farra, Mohamed H; Gulbransen, Matthew; Danisa, Olumide.
Afiliación
  • Taka TM; Orthopaedic Surgery, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA, USA.
  • Avetisian H; Orthopaedic Surgery, Jacobs School of Medicine at University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.
  • El-Farra MH; General Surgery, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA, USA.
  • Gulbransen M; Orthopaedic Surgery, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA, USA.
  • Danisa O; Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery and Neurological Surgery, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, CA, USA.
Global Spine J ; : 21925682241255318, 2024 May 15.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38748086
ABSTRACT
STUDY

DESIGN:

Cross-sectional.

OBJECTIVES:

Spin, a prevalent bias, can distort outcomes in well-validated research. Treatment of lumbar stenosis with spondylolisthesis through decompression alone (DA) vs decompression and fusion (DF) remains a controversial topic. We aimed to identify the prevalence of spin in meta-analyses and systematic reviews regarding DA vs DF in the treatment of spinal stenosis with concomitant degenerative spondylolisthesis.

METHODS:

MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for meta-analyses and systematic reviews comparing DA vs DF treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis accompanied by degenerative spondylolisthesis. Each study was evaluated for the nine most severe spin types. We also explored the association between spin and methodological quality of a systematic review using the revised A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews appraisal tool.

RESULTS:

The search yielded 1506 articles, of which 13 met inclusion. It was found that 46.2% (6/13) of the articles contained spin within the abstract. Of the nine most severe types, type 5 was found to be the most prevalent (4/13, 30.8%), followed by types 9 (2/13, 15.4%), 3 (1/13, 7.7%), 4 (1/13, 7.7%), and 6 (1/13, 7.7%). Spin types 1, 2, 7 and 8 were not found. According to AMSTAR-2, 53.8% (7/13) of the studies were appraised as "critically low" quality and 46.2% (6/13) as "low" quality.

CONCLUSION:

This study demonstrated the presence of spin in 46.2% of abstracts pertaining to the treatment for spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine surgeons should learn to recognize spin as they review articles before implementing them into practice.
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Global Spine J Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Reino Unido
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Global Spine J Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Reino Unido