The available evidence on demineralised bone matrix in trauma and orthopaedic surgery:a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Objectives: The aim of this systematic literature review was to assess the clinical level of evidence of commercially available demineralised bone matrix (DBM) products for their use in trauma and orthopaedic related surgery. Methods: A total of 17 DBM products were used as search terms in two available databases: Embase and PubMed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses statement. All articles that reported the clinical use of a DBM-product in trauma and orthopaedic related surgery were included. Results: The literature search resulted in 823 manuscripts of which 64 manuscripts met the final inclusion criteria. The included manuscripts consisted of four randomised controlled trials (level I), eight cohort studies (level III) and 49 case-series (level IV). No clinical studies were found for ten DBM products, and most DBM products were only used in combination with other grafting materials. DBM products were most extensively investigated in spinal surgery, showing limited level I evidence that supports the use Grafton DBM (Osteotech, Eatontown, New Jersey) as a bone graft extender in posterolateral lumbar fusion surgery. DBM products are not thoroughly investigated in trauma surgery, showing mainly level IV evidence that supports the use of Allomatrix (Wright Medical, London, United Kingdom), DBX (DePuy Synthes, Zuchwil, Switzerland), Grafton DBM, or OrthoBlast (Citagenix Laval, Canada) as bone graft extenders. Conclusions: The clinical level of evidence that supports the use of DBM in trauma and orthopaedic surgery is limited and consists mainly of poor quality and retrospective case-series. More prospective, randomised controlled trials are needed to understand the clinical effect and impact of DBM in trauma and orthopaedic surgery.</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".