ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2015
Neurology Choosing Wisely recommendations: 74 and growing.
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ensuring Access to Neurologic Care: Challenges and Opportunities.Seminars in neurology · 2025Review
- Physical Examination Is Predictive of Cauda Equina Syndrome: MRI to Rule Out Diagnosis Is Unnecessary.Global spine journal · 2022Article
- Patient engagement and shared decision-making: What do they look like in neurology practice?Neurology. Clinical practice · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To increase neurologist awareness and inform future efficiency efforts, we identified all neurology-related Choosing Wisely items. Items were categorized by neurologic specialty, disease/symptom, and test/treatment. Of 370 items provided by 65 medical societies, 74 (20%) items were relevant to neurologists. Twelve were duplicated by multiple societies. Items pertaining to 10 neurologic subspecialties were identified, but none for movement disorders and neuromuscular disease. While many recommendations question the use of imaging, few address other high-cost neurologic tests such as EMG/nerve conduction studies and EEG. A rapidly growing number of neurology-related Choosing Wisely recommendations exist including areas of consensus and areas with few recommendations despite high costs. Consensus items should be prioritized for near-term interventions, while areas with few recommendations represent opportunities for future research.
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.