Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24744567›Full record

ArticleJournal of craniovertebral junction & spine2013

Isolated spinal neurosarcoidosis: An enigmatic intramedullary spinal cord pathology-case report and review of the literature.

Manish K Kasliwal, Aparna Harbhajanka, Sukriti Nag, John E O'Toole

Open access · diamondAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Intramedullary spinal cord involvement: a rare presentation of sarcoidosis.International medical case reports journal · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Manish K KasliwalDepartment of Neurosurgery, RUSH University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Aparna HarbhajankaDepartment of Pathology, RUSH University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Sukriti NagDepartment of Pathology, RUSH University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
John E O'TooleDepartment of Neurosurgery, RUSH University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Rush University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Isolated spinal cord neurosarcoidosis (NS) in the absence of systemic disease or intracranial involvement is exceptionally rare. Adjunctive laboratory tests though useful may not be reliable and the absence of any pathognomonic radiological features makes the diagnosis difficult. As spinal cord NS may be a presenting feature of systemic sarcoidosis which may be occult on routine workup, (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) may be of value in unraveling this systemic involvement avoiding biopsying the spinal cord. A case of truly isolated NS is described with review of literature on this enigmatic pathology. Long segment intramedullary signal changes with focal parenchymal along with dural/meningeal enhancement in the absence of significant cervical stenosis in a young patient of northern European or African-American decent is very suggestive of NS and although may be presumably treated with steroids; there should be a low threshold for spinal cord biopsy especially in the absence of response to steroids to confirm isolated spinal cord NS in a patient with clinical neurological deterioration.

Indexed as

Biopsydiagnosismanagementneurosarcoidosisspinal

Identifiers

PMID24744567
PMCPMC3980561
OpenAlexW2084043745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.