ArticleClinical radiology2015
Standardization and validation of a novel and simple method to assess lumbar dural sac size.
Article in Clinical radiology, 2015. 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.
- Enlarged Dural Sac in Idiopathic Bronchiectasis Implicates Heritable Connective Tissue Gene Variants.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo develop and validate a simple, reproducible method to assess dural sac size using standard imaging technology. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study was institutional review board-approved. Two readers, blinded to the diagnoses, measured anterior-posterior (AP) and transverse (TR) dural sac diameter (DSD), and AP vertebral body diameter (VBD) of the lumbar vertebrae using MRI images from 53 control patients with pre-existing MRI examinations, 19 prospectively MRI-imaged healthy controls, and 24 patients with Marfan syndrome with prior MRI or CT lumbar spine imaging. Statistical analysis utilized linear and logistic regression, Pearson correlation, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
resultsAP-DSD and TR-DSD measurements were reproducible between two readers (r = 0.91 and 0.87, respectively). DSD (L1-L5) was not different between male and female controls in the AP or TR plane (p = 0.43; p = 0.40, respectively), and did not vary by age (p = 0.62; p = 0.25) or height (p = 0.64; p = 0.32). AP-VBD was greater in males versus females (p = 1.5 × 10(-8)), resulting in a smaller dural sac ratio (DSR) (DSD/VBD) in males (p = 5.8 × 10(-6)). Marfan patients had larger AP-DSDs and TR-DSDs than controls (p = 5.9 × 10(-9); p = 6.5 × 10(-9), respectively). Compared to DSR, AP-DSD and TR-DSD better discriminate Marfan from control subjects based on area under the curve (AUC) values from unadjusted ROCs (AP-DSD p < 0.01; TR-DSD p = 0.04).
conclusionIndividual vertebrae and L1-L5 (average) AP-DSD and TR-DSD measurements are simple, reliable, and reproducible for quantitating dural sac size without needing to control for gender, age, or height.
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.