ArticleSkeletal radiology2018
Correlation of listhesis on upright radiographs and central lumbar spinal canal stenosis on supine MRI: is it possible to predict lumbar spinal canal stenosis?
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The Essence of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis, 2021: 2. Diagnosis and Evaluation.Spine surgery and related research · 2023Article
- Accurate prediction of lumbar microdecompression level with an automated MRI grading system.Skeletal radiology · 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
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate whether upright radiographs can predict lumbar spinal canal stenosis using supine lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to investigate the detection performance for spondylolisthesis on upright radiographs compared with supine MRI in patients with suspected lumbar spinal canal stenosis (LSS). MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, conventional radiographs and MR images of 143 consecutive patients with suspected LSS (75 female, mean age 72 years) were evaluated. The presence and extent of listhesis (median ± interquartile range) were assessed on upright radiographs and supine MRI of L4/5. In addition, the grade of central spinal stenosis of the same level was evaluated on MRI according to the classification of Schizas and correlated with the severity/grading of anterolisthesis on radiographs.
resultsAnterolisthesis was detected in significantly more patients on radiographs (n = 54; 38%) compared with MRI (n = 28; 20%), p < 0.001. Pairwise comparison demonstrated a significantly larger extent of anterolisthesis on radiographs (9 ± 5 mm) compared with MRI (5 ± 3 mm), p < 0.001. A positive correlation was found regarding the extent of anterolisthesis measured on radiographs and the grade of stenosis on MRI (r = 0.563, p < 0.001). Applying a cutoff value of ≥5 mm anterolisthesis on radiographs results in a specificity of 90% and a positive predictive value of 78% for the detection of patients with LSS, as defined by the Schizas classification.
conclusionUpright radiographs demonstrated more and larger extents of anterolisthesis compared with supine MRI. In addition, in patients with suspected LSS, the extent of anterolisthesis on radiographs (particularly ≥5 mm) is indicative of LSS and warrants lumbar spine MRI.
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.