Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12723977›Full record

ReviewArthritis research & therapy2003

Degeneration of the intervertebral disc.

Jill P G Urban, Sally Roberts

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Arthritis research & therapy, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 568 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
568citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

568 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,222 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Stem cells and discogenic back pain.British medical bulletin · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

508 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jill P G UrbanUniversity Laboratory of Physiology, Oxford University, Oxford, UK. jpgu@physiol.ox.ac.uk.
Sally Roberts
Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The intervertebral disc is a cartilaginous structure that resembles articular cartilage in its biochemistry, but morphologically it is clearly different. It shows degenerative and ageing changes earlier than does any other connective tissue in the body. It is believed to be important clinically because there is an association of disc degeneration with back pain. Current treatments are predominantly conservative or, less commonly, surgical; in many cases there is no clear diagnosis and therapy is considered inadequate. New developments, such as genetic and biological approaches, may allow better diagnosis and treatments in the future.

Indexed as

AnimalsBack PainHumansIntervertebral DiscMiceSpinal Diseases

Identifiers

PMID12723977
PMCPMC165040
OpenAlexW2128431867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.