Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28044125›Full record

ReviewBioMed research international2016

Spinal Epidural Abscess: A Review with Special Emphasis on Earlier Diagnosis.

Allison Bond, Farrin A Manian

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioMed research international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The Journal of international medical research · 2022
    Article
  18. Let's Be Honest: These Medical Malpractice Cases Were a Pain in the Back.Clinical practice and cases in emergency medicine · 2022
    Article
  19. Spinal epidural abscess due to acute pyelonephritis.Surgical neurology international · 2022
    Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Allison BondDepartment of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Farrin A ManianDepartment of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3771-2912

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spinal epidural abscess (SEA) is an uncommon but serious condition with significant morbidity and mortality. The prognosis of SEA is highly dependent on the timeliness of its diagnosis before neurological deficits develop. Unfortunately, often due to its nonspecific presentation, such as back pain, the diagnosis of SEA may be delayed in up to 75% of cases. Although many risk factors for SEA can be found in the published literature, their utility is limited by their frequent lack of objective evidence, numerousness, and absence in a significant proportion of cases. In this review, we call for a more discriminate evidence-based use of the term "risk factor" when discussing SEA and explore several approaches to its earlier diagnosis, including a simple algorithm based on its pathophysiology and serum C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsC-Reactive ProteinEarly DiagnosisEpidural AbscessHumansPrognosisRisk FactorsC-Reactive Protein

Identifiers

PMID28044125
PMCPMC5156786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.