ArticleSurgical neurology international2018
Treatment of cervical radiculopathy: A review of the evolution and economics.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment and Rehabilitation in Cervical Radiculopathy-Efficacy of Structured Program with or Without Neurotrophic Agents.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Perspective: Cervical laminoforaminotomy (CLF) is safer than anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) for lateral cervical disease.Surgical neurology international · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy has centered around anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Alternatively, the posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy/microdiscectomy (PCF/PCM), which results in comparable outcomes and is more cost-effective, has been underutilized.
methodsHere, we compared the direct/indirect costs, reoperation rates, and outcome for ACDF and PCF vs. PCM using PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases.
resultsThere were no significant differences between the re-operative rates of PCF/PCM (2% to 9.8%) versus ACDF (2% to 8%). Direct costs of ACDF were also significantly higher; the 1-year cost-utility analysis demonstrated that ACDF had $131,951/QALY while PCM had $79,856/QALY.
conclusionPCF/PCM for radiculopathy are safe and more cost-effective vs. ACDF, and have similar clinical outcomes.
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.