Surgical Versus Nonsurgical Treatment for High-Grade Spondylolisthesis in Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimal management of high-grade spondylolisthesis in children and adolescent is controversial. There is a paucity of literature regarding operatively or nonoperative management in this setting. To assessment of the current state of evidence regarding high-grade spondylolisthesis treatment with the goal of obtaining outcome comparisons in these patients managed either operatively or nonoperatively. We performed a systematic literature search up to November 2014, using Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. The analysis and eligibility criteria were documented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-guidelines) and Cochrane Back Review Group editorial board. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS-scale) to assess the quality. Five observational studies were considered eligible for analysis based on the evaluation of 1596 identified papers. The mean overall difference in the Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire 22 between the surgical and nonsurgical groups was not statistically significant (95% CI: -0.17 to 0.21, P = 0.84). The pooled mean difference in progression of slip between the surgical and nonsurgical groups was no significant difference (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.12-1.81, P = 0.27, I = 0%). Because of the preponderance of uncontrolled case series, low-quality evidence indicates that the quality of life and progression of slips was no significant difference between surgery and nonoperation group. Nonoperative patients had no radiologic progression of their slip during the follow-up period.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".