ArticleGlobal spine journal2018
Differences in Cross-Sectional Intervertebral Foraminal Area From C3 to C7.
Article in Global spine journal, 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Determination of the Most Suitable Cut-Off Point of the Cervical Foraminal Cross-Sectional Area at the C5/6 Level to Predict Cervical Foraminal Bony Stenosis.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- Traumatic cervical vertebral artery aneurysm associated with suicidal stabs.Surgical neurology international · 2021Article
- Brachial Plexus Injuries in Sport Medicine: Clinical Evaluation, Diagnostic Approaches, Treatment Options, and Rehabilitative Interventions.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2020Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designAnatomical comparative study.
objectivesFew studies have evaluated foraminal areas in the cervical spine without degenerative changes. The purpose of this study was to determine and compare the mean cross-sectional foraminal areas between the C3/4, C4/5, C5/6, and C6/7 levels while also analyzing specimens for differences between sexes and races.
methodsWe performed an anatomic study of the intervertebral foramen at 4 levels (C3/4, C4/5, C5/6, C6/7) in 100 skeletally mature osseous specimens. Specimens were selected to obtain equal number of African American and Caucasian males and females (n = 25/group) aged 20 to 40 years at time of death. Foramina were photographed bilaterally with and without a silicone rubber disc. The maximal vertical height and mid-sagittal width of each foramen were digitally measured and the areas were calculated using an ellipse as a model.
resultsThe average age at death for all specimens was 30 ± 6 years. The mean cross-sectional area of the C4/5 foramen was significantly smaller compared with the C5/6 (
conclusionsThis study provides the largest anatomical reference of the cervical intervertebral foramen. In a mature spine without facet joint hypertrophy or osteophytic changes, the C4/5 foramen was narrower than C5/6, which was narrower than C6/7. Understanding the relative foraminal areas in the nonpathological cervical spine is crucial to understanding degenerative changes as well as the anatomical changes in pathologies that affect the intervertebral foramen.
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.