ArticleJournal of pain research2013
Significance of preoperative MRI in establishing levels of augmentation for percutaneous vertebroplasty.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosis of painful cemented vertebrae from failed vertebroplasty: modified dynamic radiographs play an important role.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2017Article
- Epidemiology and management of osteoporosis in the People's Republic of China: current perspectives.Clinical interventions in aging · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether X-ray, computed tomography (CT), bone scan, and clinical impression accurately reflect the level of vertebral fracture in patients about to undergo vertebroplasty.
designRetrospective observational study, utilizing patient inpatient notes, referral correspondence, and clinicians' private notes.
settingSingle center - all patients referred to one pain medicine physician for vertebroplasty who subsequently had the procedure.
participantsAll patients referred to a pain physician (PJG) over a 4-year period, who had a presumptive diagnosis of vertebral fracture(s) from the referring consultant physician, based on imaging other than magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical impression. Participants then had an MRI and subsequent vertebroplasty under the care of the pain physician. Participants were identified retrospectively from the vertebroplasty procedure list.
interventionNil.
main outcome measureNumber of cases in which the MRI identified a different level of pathology than X-ray, CT, bone scan, and clinical impression.
resultsIn 50% (28/56) of patients MRI identified a fracture at a different level to that which was presumed to be the cause of patient pain on the basis of X-ray, CT, and clinical impression.
conclusionMRI is an essential investigation to determine accurately the level of fracture in osteoporotic patients. Studies on the effectiveness of treatment of vertebral fractures that do not utilize MRI in every case are unlikely to be accurate.
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.