Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28774580›Full record

ReviewThe spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society2018

Advancing imaging technologies for patients with spinal pain: with a focus on whiplash injury.

James M Elliott, Mark J Hancock, Rebecca J Crawford, Andrew C Smith, David M Walton

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Artificial Intelligence in Spine and Paraspinal Muscle Analysis.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024
    Review
  3. Biopsychosocial sequelae and recovery trajectories from whiplash injury following a motor vehicle collision.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. 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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

James M ElliottDepartment of Physical Therapy and Human Movement Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 645 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 1100, Chicago, IL, USA; School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Australia; Zürich University of Applied Sciences, Gertrudstrasse 15, 8401 Winterthur, Switzerland. Electronic address: j-elliott@northwestern.edu.
Mark J HancockFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, 2 Technology Pl, Macquarie Park, Sydney, NSW 2113, Australia.
Rebecca J CrawfordZürich University of Applied Sciences, Gertrudstrasse 15, 8401 Winterthur, Switzerland.
Andrew C SmithRegis University School of Physical Therapy, 3333 Regis Boulevard, Denver, CO 80221, USA.
David M WaltonSchool of Physical Therapy, Western University, Room 1588, London, Ontario N6G 1H1, Canada.
Macquarie University · AUNorthwestern University · USRegis University · USWestern University · CAZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences · CH

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
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD079076
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background contextRadiological observations of soft-tissue changes that may relate to clinical symptoms in patients with traumatic and non-traumatic spinal disorders are highly controversial. Studies are often of poor quality and findings are inconsistent. A plethora of evidence suggests some pathoanatomical findings from traditional imaging applications are common in asymptomatic participants across the life span, which further questions the diagnostic, prognostic, and theranostic value of traditional imaging. Although we do not dispute the limited evidence for the clinical importance of most imaging findings, we contend that the disparate findings across studies may in part be due to limitations in the approaches used in assessment and analysis of imaging findings. PURPOSE: This clinical commentary aimed to (1) briefly detail available imaging guidelines, (2) detail research-based evidence around the clinical use of findings from advanced, but available, imaging applications (eg, fat and water magnetic resonance imaging and magnetization transfer imaging), and (3) introduce how evolving imaging technologies may improve our mechanistic understanding of pain and disability, leading to improved treatments and outcomes. STUDY DESIGN/

settingA non-systematic review of the literature is carried out.

methodsA narrative summary (including studies from the authors' own work in whiplash injuries) of the available literature is provided.

resultsAn emerging body of evidence suggests that the combination of existing imaging sequences or the use of developing imaging technologies in tandem with a good clinical assessment of modifiable risk factors may provide important diagnostic information toward the exploration and development of more informed and effective treatment options for some patients with traumatic neck pain.

conclusionsAdvancing imaging technologies may help to explain the seemingly disconnected spectrum of biopsychosocial signs and symptoms of traumatic neck pain.

Indexed as

Back PainHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingWhiplash InjuriesBiopsychosocialImagingLow back painMRINeck painWhiplash

Identifiers

PMID28774580
PMCPMC6874915
OpenAlexW2741676353

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.