MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385295248 · doi:10.1111/os.13800

Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Percutaneous Curved Vertebroplasty in Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2023· review· en· W4385295248 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Surgery · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialOswestry Disability IndexVisual analogue scalePercutaneous vertebroplastyJadad scaleCobb angleSystematic reviewSurgeryObservational studyInternal medicineOsteoporosisMEDLINERadiographyLow back painPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed to provide higher quality evidence regarding the efficacy and safety between PCVP and PVP/KP in OVCFs. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (cohort or case-control studies) that compare PCVP to PVP/KP for OVCFs. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to evaluate the quality of the RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. A total of seven articles consisting of 562 patients with 593 diseased vertebral bodies were included. Statistically significant differences were found in the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) at 1 day (MD = -0.11; 95% CI: [-0.21 to -0.01], p = 0.03), but not at 3 months (MD = -0.21; 95% CI: [-0.41-0.00], p = 0.05) or 6 months (MD = 0.03; 95% CI: [-0.13-0.20], p = 0.70). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 1 day (MD = -0.28; 95% CI: [-0.62-0.05], p = 0.10), 3 months (MD = -1.52; 95% CI: [-3.11-0.07], p = 0.06), or 6 months (MD = 0.18; 95% CI: [-0.13-0.48], p = 0.25). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in Cobb angle (MD = 0.30; 95% CI: [-1.69-2.30], p = 0.77) or anterior vertebral body height (SMD = -0.01; 95% CI: [-0.26-0.23], p = 0.92) after surgery. Statistically significant differences were found in surgical time (MD = -8.60; 95% CI: [-13.75 to -3.45], p = 0.001), cement infusion volume (MD = -0.82; 95% CI: [-1.50 to -0.14], P = 0.02), and dose of fluoroscopy (SMD = -1.22; 95% CI: [-1.84 to -0.60], p = 0.0001) between curved and noncurved techniques, especially compared to bilateral PVP. Moreover, cement leakage showed statistically significant difference (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: [0.27-0.60], p < 0.0001). Compared with PVP/KP, PCVP is superior for pain relief at short-term follow-up. Additionally, PCVP has the advantages of significantly lower surgical time, radiation exposure, bone cement infusion volume, and cement leakage incidence compared to bilateral PVP, while no statistically significant difference is found when compared with unilateral PVP or PKP. In terms of quality of life and radiologic outcomes, the effects of PCVP and PVP/KP are not significantly different. Overall, this meta-analysis reveals that PCVP was an effective and safe therapy for patients with OVCFs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it