ArticleNeural regeneration research2019
Establishment and verification of a surgical prognostic model for cervical spinal cord injury without radiological abnormality.
Article in Neural regeneration research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel classification of patients with cervical spinal cord injury without fracture-dislocation based on imaging features: a multicenter study.Spinal cord series and cases · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a predictive model for acute myelitis secondary to hyperextension-induced spinal cord injury in pediatric patients.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Prognostic Value of mRNAsi/Corrected mRNAsi Calculated by the One-Class Logistic Regression Machine-Learning Algorithm in Glioblastoma Within Multiple Datasets.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2021Article
- Changes in neurological and pathological outcomes in a modified rat spinal cord injury model with closed canal.Neural regeneration research · 2020Article
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
Some studies have suggested that early surgical treatment can effectively improve the prognosis of cervical spinal cord injury without radiological abnormality, but no research has focused on the development of a prognostic model of cervical spinal cord injury without radiological abnormality. This retrospective analysis included 43 patients with cervical spinal cord injury without radiological abnormality. Seven potential factors were assessed: age, sex, external force strength causing damage, duration of disease, degree of cervical spinal stenosis, Japanese Orthopaedic Association score, and physiological cervical curvature. A model was established using multiple binary logistic regression analysis. The model was evaluated by concordant profiling and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Bootstrapping was used for internal validation. The prognostic model was as follows: logit(P) = -25.4545 + 21.2576VALUE + 1.2160SCORE - 3.4224TIME, where VALUE refers to the Pavlov ratio indicating the extent of cervical spinal stenosis, SCORE refers to the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (0-17) after the operation, and TIME refers to the disease duration (from injury to operation). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for all patients was 0.8941 (95% confidence interval, 0.7930-0.9952). Three factors assessed in the predictive model were associated with patient outcomes: a great extent of cervical stenosis, a poor preoperative neurological status, and a long disease duration. These three factors could worsen patient outcomes. Moreover, the disease prognosis was considered good when logit(P) ≥ -2.5105. Overall, the model displayed a certain clinical value. This study was approved by the Biomedical Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, China (approval number: 2018063) on May 8, 2018.
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.