Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21928008›Full record

ReviewDer Radiologe2011

[Analgesic interventions for spinal diseases].

W Reith, U Yilmaz

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Radiologe, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.

W ReithKlinik für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Neuroradiologie, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Kirrberger Straße 1, 66421, Homburg/Saar, Deutschland. Wolfgang.Reith@uks.eu
U Yilmaz
Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As a rule vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty can prevent further collapse of a previously broken vertebra. Pain is probably caused by collapse of the porous bone resulting in instability of the vertebra. Stabilization of the vertebra by injecting cement results in a clear improvement in the complaint and a clear reduction in pain resulting in better mobilization. Recent results have, however, cast doubt on the effectiveness of this therapy. Diagnostic nerve blocks on the spinal column are important because the pain is mostly clinically uncharacteristic, the innervation is complex and the pain is subjective. An exact classification can be made using special nerve blocks. Prerequisites for the use of diagnostic nerve blocks are an extensive clinical history and examination of the patient before nerve blocks are carried out. In approximately 15-45% of patients the zygapophyseal joint is the cause of the back pain. Anesthesia of the zygapophyseal joint can be carried out by direct intra-articular application of a local anesthetic or by a block of the medial branch of the posterior branch of each of two spinal nerves. The simplest method is by computed tomography-guided zygapophyseal block.

Indexed as

KyphoplastyVertebroplastyAnesthetics, LocalBack PainHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedInjections, SpinalMagnetic Resonance ImagingNerve BlockPostoperative PainSpinal FracturesSpinal Nerve RootsSurgery, Computer-AssistedTomography, X-Ray ComputedTreatment OutcomeZygapophyseal JointAnesthetics, Local

Identifiers

PMID21928008
OpenAlexW107476023

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.