ArticleJournal of clinical imaging science2017
Sagittal Normal Limits of Lumbosacral Spine in a Large Adult Population: A Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical imaging science, 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.
- Ultrasound-guided measurement of cross-sectional area of dural sac to titrate the dosage of local anaesthetic in geriatric orthopaedic surgery under spinal anaesthesia: A prospective randomised study.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Risk Factors for Neurologic Deficits in Patients With Spinal Epidural Abscess: An Analysis of One-Hundred-Forty Cases.Global spine journal · 2025Article
- Radiographic analysis of neuroforaminal and central canal decompression following lateral lumbar interbody fusion.North American Spine Society journal · 2022Article
- Severity and location of lumbar spine stenosis affects the outcome of total knee arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study was to determine, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the lumbosacral spine from L1 to S1, the values of the normal sagittal diameter of the spinal canal (SCD), sagittal diameter of the dural sac (DSD), and the normal values of dural sac ratio (DSR) in a large nonsymptomatic adult population and to discriminate whether a vertebral canal is pathological or nonpathological for dural ectasia and/or stenosis. MATERIALS AND
methodsSix hundred and four patients were prospectively enrolled. All measurements were performed on MRI sagittal T1- and T2-weighted images. The 95% confidence interval (95% CI), defined as mean ± 1.96 standard deviation, was determined for each metric. The upper limit of 95% CI was considered the cutoff value for the normal DSR; the lower limit of 95% CI was considered the cutoff value for the normal SCD.
resultsSCD cutoff values from L1 to S1 ranged from 14.5-10.1 mm (males) to 15.0-9.9 mm (females). DSD ratios at S1 and L4 level show a significant difference in male and female groups: 11% of S1/L4 values exceeded 1 in male group while only 4% of S1/L4 values exceeded 1 in female group. Mean DSR at each level was significantly higher in female patients than in male patients (
conclusionsWe determined the cutoff values for the normal DSR and for the normal SCD. Our findings show the relevant discrepancies with respect to literature data for diagnosis of lumbar stenosis and/or dural ectasia.
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.