ArticleInternational orthopaedics2009
Clinical value of motor evoked potentials with transcranial magnetic stimulation in the assessment of lumbar spinal stenosis.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natural Course and Diagnosis of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations.World neurosurgery: X · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of assessing motor evoked potentials (MEP) in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Twenty-three LSS patients were enrolled. The preoperative data of MEP latency (MEPLT), clinical symptoms, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores for low back pain, visual analogue scale (VAS) for back pain, leg pain and numbness, walking distance and the minimal cross-sectional area (mCSA) of the dural sac were evaluated. The mean MEPLT was 42.1 +/- 2.8 ms. Fourteen patients had bilateral leg symptoms. The mean walking distance and mCSA were 302.1 +/- 302.8 m and 0.4 +/- 0.2 cm(2), respectively. The mean JOA score and VAS scores for back pain, leg pain and numbness were 15.9 +/- 4.8, 6.0 +/- 2.9, 7.7 +/- 1.9 and 7.3 +/- 3.0, respectively. MEPLT was related to the walking distance, limb symptoms and the VAS for numbness. MEPLT was significantly delayed in patients who showed a walking distance less than 500 m. MEP is useful in LSS assessment. It can reflect the subjective severity of motor disturbance and predict the neurological deficit prior to appearance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.