SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2016
Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in detecting lumbo-sacral nerve root compromise: a systematic literature review.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhanced diagnostic value of adding 3D MR neurography sequence to routine lumbar spine MRI protocol: A retrospective study.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- Musculoskeletal mimics of lumbosacral radiculopathy.Muscle & nerve · 2025Review
- Article
- Is the Straight Leg Raise Suitable for the Diagnosis of Radiculopathy? Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy in a Phase III Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Comparison between Herniated and Non-Herniated Disc Levels Regarding Intervertebral Disc Space Height and Disc Degeneration, A Magnetic Resonance Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings in Patients with Tarsal Tunnel Syndrome.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2022Article
- Referral patterns for surgical consult in the management of patients with foot drop due to acute lumbar disc herniation: a survey study of physical therapists in the United States.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMRI is considered to be the diagnostic tool of choice in diagnosing nerve root compromise among patients presenting with clinical suspicion of lumbo-sacral radiculopathy. There exists controversy among researchers and clinicians regarding the diagnostic utility and accuracy of MRI in detecting nerve root compromise and radiculopathy. This review evaluated 4 primary diagnostic accuracy studies that specifically assessed the accuracy of MRI in detecting nerve root compromise, as established in the current literature.
methodsEight electronic data bases were searched for relevant articles from inception until January 2014. All primary diagnostic studies which investigated the accuracy of MRI in diagnosing nerve root compromise among patients with low back and referred leg symptoms were screened for inclusion. Qualifying studies were retrieved and independently assessed for methodological quality using the 'Quality Assessment of Diagnostic tests Accuracy Studies' criteria.
resultsFour studies qualified for inclusion in this review. The sensitivity of MRI in detecting lumbar nerve root compromise was very low at 0.25 (95 % CI) while the specificity was relatively high at 0.92 (95 % CI).
conclusionsThere is lack of sufficient high quality scientific evidence in support or against the use of MRI in diagnosing nerve root compression and radiculopathy. Therefore, clinicians should always correlate the findings of MRI with the patients' medical history and clinical presentation in clinical decision making.
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.