Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29807530›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2018

Towards defining muscular regions of interest from axial magnetic resonance imaging with anatomical cross-reference: part II - cervical spine musculature.

James M Elliott, Jon Cornwall, Ewan Kennedy, Rebecca Abbott, Rebecca J Crawford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Erector Spine and Cervical Extensor Muscles in Dysphagia.Geriatrics & gerontology international · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

James M ElliottFaculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Northern Sydney Local Health District, St Leonards, Australia 75 East Street Lidcombe NSW, Sydney, 2141, Australia. jim.elliott@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8890-6012
Jon CornwallCentre for Early Learning in Medicine, Otago Medical School, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Ewan KennedySchool of Physiotherapy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Rebecca AbbottDepartment of Physical Therapy and Human Movement Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, USA.
Rebecca J CrawfordFaculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt has been suggested that the quantification of paravertebral muscle composition and morphology (e.g. size/shape/structure) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic potential in contributing to overall musculoskeletal health. If this is to be realised, then consensus towards standardised MRI methods for measuring muscular size/shape/structure are crucial to allow the translation of such measurements towards management of, and hopefully improved health for, those with some musculoskeletal conditions. Following on from an original paper detailing methods for measuring muscles traversing the lumbar spine, we propose new methods based on anatomical cross-reference that strive towards standardising MRI-based quantification of anterior and posterior cervical spine muscle composition.

methodsIn this descriptive technical advance paper we expand our methods from the lumbar spine by providing a detailed examination of regional cervical spine muscle morphology, followed by a comprehensive description of the proposed technique defining muscle ROI from axial MRI. Cross-referencing cervical musculature and vertebral anatomy includes an innovative comparison between axial E12 sheet-plastinates derived from cadaveric material to a series of axial MRIs detailing commonly used sequences. These images are shown at different cervical levels to illustrate differences in regional morphology. The method for defining ROI for both anterior (scalenes group, sternocleidomastoid, longus colli, longus capitis) and posterior (multifidus, semispinalis cervicis, semispinalis capitis, splenius capitis) cervical muscles is then described and discussed in relation to existing literature.

resultsA series of steps towards standardising the quantification of cervical spine muscle quality are described, with concentration on the measurement of muscle volume and fatty infiltration (MFI). We offer recommendations for imaging parameters that should additionally inform a priori decisions when planning investigations of cervical muscle tissues with MRI.

conclusionsThe proposed method provides an option rather than a final position for quantifying cervical spine muscle composition and morphology using MRI. We intend to stimulate discussion towards establishing measurement consensus whereby data-pooling and meaningful comparisons between imaging studies (primarily MRI) investigating cervical muscle quality becomes available and the norm.

Indexed as

Cervical VertebraeFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeck MusclesCervical spineMagnetic resonance imagingManual segmentationMuscle fat infiltrationParavertebral musclesRegion of interest

Identifiers

PMID29807530
PMCPMC5972401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.