ReviewDer Nervenarzt2018
[Diagnostics and conservative treatment of cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON SPINE SURGERY IN A TERTIARY HEALTH CARE INSTITUTION.Acta ortopedica brasileira · 2022Article
- Neurosurgical Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Central Germany: A Retrospective Single Center Study of the Second Wave.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- A snapshot of European neurosurgery December 2019 vs. March 2020: just before and during the Covid-19 pandemic.Acta neurochirurgica · 2020Article
- T1 Mapping Quantifies Spinal Cord Compression in Patients With Various Degrees of Cervical Spinal Canal Stenosis.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- [Avoid operative interventions without interdisciplinary clarification].Der Nervenarzt · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDegenerative stenotic spondylosis is not an uncommon cause of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and cauda equina lesions in the aged population. Limited standardization exists with respect to diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.
objectiveLiterature review with respect to diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for neurologically relevant cervical and lumbar spinals stenosis. MATERIAL AND
methodsComprehensive literature review. RESULTS AND
conclusionClinical neurological examination and diagnostic imaging are fundamental for the diagnosis of neurologically relevant cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis. Additional laboratory blood and cerebrospinal fluid testing might be required for a differential diagnosis. Neurophysiological testing is reserved for specific clinical problems. The clinical evidence for the efficacy of conservative therapeutic strategies is limited.
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.