Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 290

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Off-Label Use of Bone Morphogenetic Proteins in the United States Using Administrative Data

Ong, Kevin L., Villarraga, Marta L., Lau, Edmund, Carreon, Leah Y., Kurtz, Steven M., Glassman, Steven D.·2010·Spine

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: Epidemiological study using national administrative data. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the temporal trends in on-label and off-label bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) usage in primary and revision spine fusion by spine region and surgical approach, and nonspine applications in the United States from 2002 to 2007. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The prevalence of BMP usage for spine fusion has been on the rise, but its use has not been stratified by surgical approach, particularly for lumbar fusion where it has only been Food And Drug Administration-approved for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). METHODS: The prevalence of BMP usage in the United States was evaluated using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between October 1, 2002 and December 31, 2007. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample is the single largest all-payer inpatient care database in the United States. The principal procedure associated with BMP use was determined, and the prevalence of BMP use was calculated for various population subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 340,251 inpatient procedures with BMP usage were identified. Between 2003 and 2007, the annual number of procedures involving BMP increased by 4.3-fold from 23,900 to 103,194. Spine fusion accounted for the vast majority (92.8%) of principal procedures with BMP. The predominant use of BMP was in primary posterior lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) (30.0%), followed by primary posterolateral spine fusion (20.4%), primary ALIF (16.6%), primary cervical fusions (13.6%), and primary thoracolumbar fusions (3.9%). Of primary ALIF with BMP, 19.3% did not involve the implantation of an interbody device. CONCLUSION: At least 85% of principal procedures using BMP were for off-label applications. With uncertainty regarding the risks of using BMP in certain off-label applications, further research will be needed to better define the appropriate indications. Our study also demonstrates that disparities in the differential rates of BMP use exist in the spine fusion population.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/brs.0b013e3181ecf6e4

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 20 references

Cited by

See all 290

Metadata

Authors
Ong, K. L., Villarraga, M. L., Lau, E., Carreon, L. Y., Kurtz, S. M., & Glassman, S. D.
Venue
Spine
Published
2010-09
Volume
35
Issue
19
Pages
1794-1800
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2050622412
Cited by
290
References
20
FWCI
11.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Off-Label Use of Bone Morphogenetic Proteins in the United States Using Administrative Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/brs.0b013e3181ecf6e4
The paper
Ong, K. L., Villarraga, M. L., Lau, E., Carreon, L. Y., Kurtz, S. M., & Glassman, S. D. (2010). Off-Label Use of Bone Morphogenetic Proteins in the United States Using Administrative Data. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3181ecf6e4

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.