Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29164038›Full record

ReviewGlobal spine journal2017

Timing of Decompression in Patients With Acute Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review.

Jefferson R Wilson, Lindsay A Tetreault, Brian K Kwon, Paul M Arnold, Thomas E Mroz, Christopher Shaffrey, James S Harrop, Jens R Chapman, Steve Casha, Andrea C Skelly and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global spine journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 164 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

13 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.

Jefferson R WilsonUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Lindsay A TetreaultToronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Brian K KwonVancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Paul M ArnoldUniversity of Kansas Medical Center, The University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, USA.
Thomas E MrozCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Christopher ShaffreyUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
James S HarropThomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jens R ChapmanSwedish Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Steve CashaUniversity of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Andrea C SkellySpectrum Research, Inc, Tacoma, WA, USA.
Haley K HolmerSpectrum Research, Inc, Tacoma, WA, USA.
Erika D BrodtSpectrum Research, Inc, Tacoma, WA, USA.
Michael G FehlingsUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Spectrum Research (United States) · USUniversity of Toronto · CACleveland Clinic · USSwedish Medical Center · USThomas Jefferson University · USUniversity College Cork · IEUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Kansas Medical Center · USUniversity of Virginia · USVancouver General Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designSystematic review.

objectiveTo conduct a systematic review and synthesis of the literature to assess the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of early (≤24 hours) versus late decompression (>24 hours) in adults with acute spinal cord injury (SCI).

methodsA systematic search was conducted of Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, and Google Scholar to identify studies published through November 6, 2014. Studies published in any language, in humans, and with an abstract were considered for inclusion. Included studies were critically appraised and the overall strength of evidence was determined using methods proposed by the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group.

resultsThe search yielded 449 potentially relevant citations. Sixteen additional primary studies were identified through other sources. Six studies met inclusion criteria. All but 2 studies were considered to have moderately high risk of bias. Across studies and injury levels, the impact of early surgical decompression (≤24 hours) on clinically important improvement in neurological status was variable. Isolated studies reported statistically significant and clinically important improvements at 6 months (cervical injury, low strength of evidence) and following discharge from inpatient rehabilitation (all levels, very low strength of evidence) but not at other time points; another study observed a statistically significant 6 point improvement in ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) among patients with AIS B, C, or D, but not for those with AIS A (very low strength of evidence). In one study of acute central cord syndrome without instability, a clinically and statistically meaningful improvement in total motor scores was reported at 6 and 12 months in patients treated early (versus late). There were, however, no significant differences in AIS improvement between early and late surgical groups at 6- or 12-months (very low strength of evidence). One of 3 studies found a shorter length of hospital stay associated with early surgical decompression. Of 3 studies reporting on safety, no significant differences in rates of complications (including mortality, neurologic deterioration, pneumonia or pressure ulcers) were noted between early and late decompression groups.

conclusionsResults surrounding the efficacy of early versus late decompressive surgery, as well as the quality of evidence available, were variable depending on the level of SCI, timing of follow-up, and specific outcome considered. Existing evidence supports improved neurological recovery among cervical SCI patients undergoing early surgery; however, evidence regarding remaining SCI populations and clinical outcomes was inconsistent.

Indexed as

spinal cord injurysystematic reviewtiming of surgery

Identifiers

PMID29164038
PMCPMC5684838
OpenAlexW2412510251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.