Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27690836›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy2016

Advancements in Imaging Technology: Do They (or Will They) Equate to Advancements in Our Knowledge of Recovery in Whiplash?

James M Elliott, Sudarshan Dayanidhi, Charles Hazle, Mark A Hoggarth, Jacob McPherson, Cheryl L Sparks, Kenneth A Weber

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Advancing imaging technologies for patients with spinal pain: with a focus on whiplash injury.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2018
    Review
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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

James M Elliott
Sudarshan Dayanidhi
Charles Hazle
Mark A Hoggarth
Jacob McPherson
Cheryl L Sparks
Kenneth A Weber
Florida International University · USNorthwestern University · USPain and Rehabilitation Medicine · USStanford University · USWalsh University · US

Funding

Neuromuscular Mechanisms Underlying Poor Recovery from Whiplash InjuriesR01HD079076 · NICHD · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI COURTNEY, D. MARK, ELLIOTT, JAMES MATTHEW · 2014 to 2018
$1.6M
Investigating Pain Processing in the Brain, Brainstem, and Spinal Cord with fMRIF32AT007800 · NCCIH · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI WEBER, KENNETH ARNOLD · 2012 to 2015
$198k
NCCIH NIH HHS F32 AT007800NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD079076
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synopsis It is generally accepted that up to 50% of those with a whiplash injury following a motor vehicle collision will fail to fully recover. Twenty-five percent of these patients will demonstrate a markedly complex clinical picture that includes severe pain-related disability, sensory and motor disturbances, and psychological distress. A number of psychosocial factors have shown prognostic value for recovery following whiplash from a motor vehicle collision. To date, no management approach (eg, physical therapies, education, psychological interventions, or interdisciplinary strategies) for acute whiplash has positively influenced recovery rates. For many of the probable pathoanatomical lesions (eg, fracture, ligamentous rupture, disc injury), there remains a lack of available clinical tests for identifying their presence. Fractures, particularly at the craniovertebral and cervicothoracic junctions, may be radiographically occult. While high-resolution computed tomography scans can detect fractures, there remains a lack of prevalence data for fractures in this population. Conventional magnetic resonance imaging has not consistently revealed lesions in patients with acute or chronic whiplash, a "failure" that may be due to limitations in the resolution of available devices and the use of standard sequences. The technological evolution of imaging techniques and sequences eventually might provide greater resolution to reveal currently elusive anatomical lesions (or, perhaps more importantly, temporal changes in physiological responses to assumed lesions) in those patients at risk of poor recovery. Preliminary findings from 2 prospective cohort studies in 2 different countries suggest that this is so, as evidenced by changes to the structure of skeletal muscles in those who do not fully recover. In this clinical commentary, we will briefly introduce the available imaging decision rules and the current knowledge underlying the pathomechanics and pathophysiology of whiplash. We will then acknowledge known prognostic factors underlying functional recovery. Last, we will highlight emerging evidence regarding the pathobiology of muscle degeneration/regeneration, as well as advancements in neuroimaging and musculoskeletal imaging techniques (eg, functional magnetic resonance imaging, magnetization transfer imaging, spectroscopy, diffusion-weighted imaging) that may be used as noninvasive and objective complements to known prognostic factors associated with whiplash recovery, in particular, poor functional recovery. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(10):861-872. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6735.

Indexed as

Accidents, TrafficClinical Decision-MakingDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyNeck MusclesPrognosisRecovery of FunctionStem CellsWhiplash Injuriescervical spinefunctional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) researchradiology/medical imagingspinal pain

Identifiers

PMID27690836
PMCPMC7274526
OpenAlexW2526753220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.