ArticleSpinal cord2017
Correlation between diffusion tensor imaging parameters and clinical assessments in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy with and without high signal intensity.
Article in Spinal cord, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of DTI Parameter Ratios for Early Diagnosis of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy.Global spine journal · 2026Article
- Acute Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predictors of Chronic Motor Function and Tissue Sparing in Rat Cervical Spinal Cord Injury.Journal of neurotrauma · 2022Article
- Quantitative Evaluation of the Diffusion Tensor Imaging Matrix Parameters and the Subsequent Correlation with the Clinical Assessment of Disease Severity in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.Asian spine journal · 2021Article
- Diffusion Tensor Imaging in Diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Syringomyelia in Spinal Cord Injury in Rats.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA cross-sectional observational study.
objectivesThe aim of this study is to compare the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and fractional anisotropy (FA) between patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) with and without high T2-weighted signal intensity, and to correlate each parameter with clinical assessments.
settingCSM is a common cause of spinal cord dysfunction. The significance of T2 high signal intensity in the prognosis of CSM remains controversial.
methodsDiffusion tensor imaging was performed at the cervical spinal cord in 40 patients with CSM and 42 healthy subjects. Patients with high signal intensity were separated from those without high signal intensity. ADC and FA values were compared among different groups, and the correlation between each parameter and the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) score was examined.
resultsThe ADC and FA values of C2/3 differed significantly from those of C5/6 and C6/7 in healthy subjects. Patients with CSM had a higher ADC but a lower FA value than did healthy subjects. In all patients with CSM, there was a negative linear correlation between ADC and mJOA score, but FA value correlated positively with mJOA score. Secondary analysis suggested that FA value in patients with high signal intensity was lower than that in patients without high signal intensity. FA value showed a positive linear correlation with mJOA score in the patients with high signal intensity but not in the patients without high signal intensity.
conclusionsPatients with high signal intensity may have more severe spinal cord injury than patients without high signal intensity, and FA may be a useful indicator of functional status in patients with CSM with high signal intensity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28872149What 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.