Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026
High rates of spin bias in systematic reviews regarding anterior cervical discectomy and fusion vs. posterior cervical foraminotomy: a systematic review.
Название и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rusu D, Olurin J, Lindgren A, Mohty N, Avetisian H, Abdou MA, Wang JC, Hah RJ, Alluri RK
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Surgical management for cervical degenerative disc disease includes anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF-the gold standard) and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF); however, current literature remains conflicted over the superiority of one procedure. Systematic reviews allow for comprehensive synthesis of literature but are susceptible to spin bias that may skew results and affect clinical decision making. This study aimed to evaluate the presence and number of spin bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing ACDF and PCF. To evaluate the prevalence, type, and predictors of spin bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and PCF.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus for systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing ACDF and PCF in June 2025. Articles were included if they were systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis, discussed treatment with surgical intervention, compared outcomes between ACDF and PCF, were available in English, and had the full text available. Any articles that did not follow these criteria were excluded. Included articles were assessed for the 9 most severe types of spin bias established by Yavchitz et al. and graded on methodological quality using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR-2).
RESULTS: Spin bias was found in 11 of 12 (92%) included articles, with number of different types of bias ranging from 0 to 2. Type 9 was the most common type of spin in 5 of 12 (42%) articles. Type 5 spin was found in 4 (33%) articles, Type 3 in 3 (25%) articles, Type 1 in 2 (16%) articles, and Types 2 and 4 in 1 (8%) article each. AMSTAR-2 quality assessments rated 7 of 12 (58%) articles as "critically low", and 5 of 12 (42%) as "low"; none received a "high" quality rating.
CONCLUSIONS: Spin bias is highly prevalent (92%) in systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing ACDF and PCF, with a maximum of 2 types of spin per article. All studies received either "critically low" or "low" quality ratings according to AMSTAR-2 criteria. Notably, all studies rated as "critically low" quality had at least 1 type of spin bias. Efforts and strategies to mitigate spin bias in orthopaedic literature are imperative to collectively enhance published literature.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus for systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing ACDF and PCF in June 2025. Articles were included if they were systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis, discussed treatment with surgical intervention, compared outcomes between ACDF and PCF, were available in English, and had the full text available. Any articles that did not follow these criteria were excluded. Included articles were assessed for the 9 most severe types of spin bias established by Yavchitz et al. and graded on methodological quality using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR-2).
RESULTS: Spin bias was found in 11 of 12 (92%) included articles, with number of different types of bias ranging from 0 to 2. Type 9 was the most common type of spin in 5 of 12 (42%) articles. Type 5 spin was found in 4 (33%) articles, Type 3 in 3 (25%) articles, Type 1 in 2 (16%) articles, and Types 2 and 4 in 1 (8%) article each. AMSTAR-2 quality assessments rated 7 of 12 (58%) articles as "critically low", and 5 of 12 (42%) as "low"; none received a "high" quality rating.
CONCLUSIONS: Spin bias is highly prevalent (92%) in systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing ACDF and PCF, with a maximum of 2 types of spin per article. All studies received either "critically low" or "low" quality ratings according to AMSTAR-2 criteria. Notably, all studies rated as "critically low" quality had at least 1 type of spin bias. Efforts and strategies to mitigate spin bias in orthopaedic literature are imperative to collectively enhance published literature.