↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Comparison of zero-profile anchored spacer versus plate-cage construct in treatment of cervical spondylosis with regard to clinical outcomes and incidence of major complications: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of zero-profile anchored spacer versus plate-cage construct in treatment of cervical spondylosis with regard to clinical outcomes and incidence of major complications: a meta-analysis
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, September 2015
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s92511
Pubmed ID
Authors

Weijun Liu, Ling Hu, Junwen Wang, Ming Liu, Xiaomei Wang

Abstract

Meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate whether zero-profile anchored spacer (Zero-P) could reduce complication rates, while maintaining similar clinical outcomes compared to plate-cage construct (PCC) in the treatment of cervical spondylosis. All prospective and retrospective comparative studies published up to May 2015 that compared the clinical outcomes of Zero-P versus PCC in the treatment of cervical spondylosis were acquired by a comprehensive search in PubMed and EMBASE. Exclusion criteria were non-English studies, noncomparative studies, hybrid surgeries, revision surgeries, and surgeries with less than a 12-month follow-up period. The main end points including Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores, cervical lordosis, fusion rate, subsidence, and dysphagia were analyzed. All studies were analyzed with the RevMan 5.2.0 software. Publication biases of main results were examined using Stata 12.0. A total of 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. No statistical difference was observed with regard to preoperative or postoperative JOA and NDI scores, cervical lordosis, and fusion rate. The Zero-P group had a higher subsidence rate than the PCC group (P<0.05, risk difference =0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-0.26). However, the Zero-P group had a significantly lower postoperative dysphagia rate than the PCC group within the first 2 weeks (P<0.05, odds ratio [OR] =0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.91), at the 6th month [P<0.05, OR =0.20, 95% CI 0.04-0.90], and at the final follow-up time [P<0.05, OR =0.13, 95% CI 0.04-0.45]. Our meta-analysis suggested that surgical treatments of single or multiple levels of cervical spondylosis using Zero-P and PCC were similar in terms of JOA score, NDI score, cervical lordosis, and fusion rate. Although the Zero-P group had a higher subsidence rate than the PCC group, Zero-P had a lower postoperative dysphagia rate and might have a lower adjacent-level ossification rate.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Researcher 6 15%
Other 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Other 11 28%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 50%
Engineering 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 8 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 September 2015.
All research outputs
#7,834,176
of 12,485,238 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#642
of 922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,824
of 246,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#54
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,485,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 922 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 246,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.