Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig. 1
The forest plots of meta-analysis of VAS score.
- Fig. 2
The forest plots of meta-analysis of vertebral height.
- Fig. 3
The forest plots of meta-analysis of kyphosis angle.
- Fig. 4
The forest plots of meta-analysis of adjacent new vertebral fractures.
- Fig. 5
The forest plots of meta-analysis of cement leakage.
Tables
References Country Published year Study design Research center Number of patients Age V K Total V K Liu et al.18 Chinese Taiwan 2010 RCT 1 50 50 100 74.3 72.3 Kumar et al.19 Canada 2010 NRCT 1 28 24 52 78 73 Santiago et al.20 Spain 2010 PC 1 30 30 60 73.0 65.9 Yan et al.21 China 2010 RC 1 94 98 192 77.2 76.9 Hiwatashi et al.22 Japan 2008 RC 1 66 40 106 77 75 Schofer et al.23 Germany 2009 PC 1 30 30 60 72.5 73.8 Lovi et al.24 Italy 2009 NRCT 1 118 36 154 67.6 67.6 Zhou et al.25 China 2008 RC 1 56 32 88 62 64 Frankel et al.26 USA 2007 RC 1 19 17 36 72 70 De Negri et al.27 Italy 2007 NRCT 1 10 11 21 NR NR Grohs et al.28 Austria 2005 NRCT 1 23 28 51 70 70 Pflugmacher et al.29 Germany 2005 PC 1 20 22 42 72.3 71.2 Movrin et al.30 Slovenia 2010 NRCT 1 27 46 73 72.9 67.8 Röllinghoff et al.31 Germany 2008 PC 1 45 45 90 NR NR Pilát et al.32 Italy 2007 RC 1 11 15 26 NR NR RCT, randomized controlled clinical trial; NRCT, nonrandomized controlled clinical trial; PC, prospective cohort study; RC, retrospective cohort study; V, vertebroplasty group; K, kyphoplasty group; NR, not reported or could not get.
Questions studies Scores Question(1) Question(2) Question(3) Question(4) Question(5) Question(6) Question(7) Question(8) Question(9) Question(10) Question(11) Liu et al.18 Y ? Y Y N N Y ? Y Y Y Kumar et al.19 N Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Santiago et al.20 N ? ? Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Yan et al.21 N ? N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Hiwatashi et al.22 N N N ? N N N ? Y Y N Schofer et al.23 N ? N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Lovi et al.24 N ? N N N N ? Y Y Y Y Zhou et al.25 N N N ? N N N ? ? ? Y Frankel et al.26 N N N ? N N ? ? N ? ? De Negri et al.27 N N N ? N N N ? ? Y Y Grohs et al.28 N ? Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Pflugmacher et al.29 N ? N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Movrin et al.30 N ? N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Röllinghoff et al.31 N ? N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Pilát et al.32 N N N ? N N N ? Y Y Y N (total) 14 5 12 2 15 15 5 0 1 0 1 ? (total) 0 9 1 5 0 0 2 6 2 2 1 Y (total) 1 1 2 9 0 0 8 9 9 13 13 Questions 1–11 were the 11 questions in the Methodological quality assessment scheme.21
Data were the responses to these questions for each article and the number of response “N,” “?,” or “Y” for each question.
Outcomes or subgroups No. of studies No. of patients Statistical method Effect estimate (95% CT)† P value (1) Volume of cement 6 615 WMD −0.75 [−0.93, −0.57] <.05* (2) Operative time 2 188 WMD −3.44 [–4.94, −1.94] <.05* WMD, indicated weighted mean difference; CI, confidence interval.
If effect estimate is positive (> 0), it means vertebroplasty group is more than kyphoplasty group. If it is negative (< 0), it means vertebroplasty group is less than kyphoplasty group. Whether it is significant lies on the P value.
↵* Statistically significant.
↵† Effect estimate.
Outcomes or subgroups No. of studies No. of patients Statistical method Effect estimate (95% CI)† P value (3) VAS score 3.1 Baseline 11 877 WMD 0.14 [−0.01, 0.28] >.05 3.2 at 1-7days 6 362 WMD 0.18 [0.02, 0.34] <.05* 3.3 at 1 month 2 214 WMD 0.45 [0.15, 0.75] <.05* 3.4 at 3 months 3 129 WMD 0.42 [0.14, 0.70] <.05* 3.5 at 6 months 5 387 WMD 0.89 [0.72, 1.06] <.05* 3.6 at 1 year 7 550 WMD 1.24 [1.07, 1.41] <.05* 3.7 at 2 years 2 205 WMD 1.01 [0.41, 1.60] <.05* (4) ODI 4.1 Baseline 5 338 WMD 3.56 [1.61, 5.51] <.05* 4.2 at 1 week 1 52 WMD 10.40 [8.06, 12.74] <.05* 4.3 at 1 month 2 214 WMD 2.82 [0.72, 4.91] <.05* 4.4 at 3 months 3 257 WMD 4.31 [1.95, 6.67] <.05* 4.5 at 6 months 3 235 WMD 0.45 [−0.82, 1.72] >.05 4.7 at 1 year 2 111 WMD 4.43 [−1.27, 10.13] <.05* 4.8 At 2 years 2 205 WMD –4.00 [–11.57, 3.57] >.05 (5) EQ-5D 5.1 Baseline 1 52 WMD −0.08 [−0.12, −0.03] <.05* 5.3 at 1 week 1 52 WMD −0.37 [−0.41, −0.33] <.05* 5.4 at 3 months 1 52 WMD −0.15 [−0.18, −0.12] <.05* 5.5 at 10 months 1 52 WMD −0.24 [−0.28, −0.21] <.05* WMD, indicated weighted mean difference; CI, confidence interval.
If effect estimate is positive (> 0), it means vertebroplasty group is more than kyphoplasty group. If it is negative (< 0), it means vertebroplasty group is less than kyphoplasty group. Whether it is significant lies on the P value.
↵* Statistically significant.
↵† Effect estimate.
Outcomes or subgroups No.of studies No.of patients Statistical method Effect estimate (95% CI)† P value (6) Vertebral height (%) 6.1 Baseline 2 265 WMD −0.65 [−3.52, 2.23] >.05 6.2 Postoperative 2 265 WMD −17.75 [−20.73, −14.77] <.05* 6.3 Improvement 3 316 WMD −7.25 [−8.45, −6.05] <.05* (7) Vertebral height (mm) 7.1 Baseline 4 480 WMD 0.06 [−0.22, 0.33] >.05 7.2 Postoperative 4 480 WMD −2.38 [−2.67, −2.08] <.05* 7.3 Improvement 2 248 WMD −2.00 [−2.75, −1.25] <.05* (8) Kyphosis angle 8.1 Baseline 4 430 WMD −1.01 [−1.98, −0.04] >.05 8.2 Postoperative 4 430 WMD 4.25 [3.52,4.98] <.05* 8.3 Improvement 5 448 WMD −5.65 [−6.13, −5.17] <.05* WMD, indicatedweightedmeandifference;CI,confidence interval.
If effect estimate is positive (>0), it means vertebroplasty group is more than kyphoplasty group. If it is negative (<0), it means vertebroplasty group is less than kyphoplasty group. Whether it is significant lies on the P value.
↵* Statistically significant.
↵† Effect estimate.
Outcomes or subgroups No. of studies No. of patients Statistical method Effect estimate (95% CI)† P value (9) Adjacent new vertebral fractures 7 667 OR 1.26 [0.69, 2.29] >.05 9.1 at 6 months 2 136 OR 0.14 [0.02, 1.21] >.05 9.2 at 1 year 5 531 OR 1.78 [0.91, 3.49] >.05 (10) Cementleakage 10.1 to disc 5 841 OR 2.10 [1.31, 3.37] <.05* 10.2 paravertebral 5 675 OR 2.36 [1.27, 4.40] <.05* 10.3 total 9 694 OR 2.15 [1.35, 3.44] <.05* OR, Odds Ratio; CI, confidence interval.
If effect estimate is positive (> 0), it means vertebroplasty group is more than kyphoplasty group. If it is negative (< 0), it means vertebroplasty group is less than kyphoplasty group. Whether it is significant lies on P value.
↵* Statistically significant.
↵† Effect estimate.
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.