Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30971277›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2019

SponDT (Spondylodiscitis Diagnosis and Treatment): spondylodiscitis scoring system.

Lars Homagk, Daniel Marmelstein, Nadine Homagk, Gunther O Hofmann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [Medecine tropicale et sante internationale · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Diagnosis of vertebral osteomyelitis.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2022
    Review
  16. Spinal disorders mimicking infection.Insights into imaging · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lars HomagkPraxisklinik Dr. Homagk - MVZ GmbH, 06667, Weißenfels, Germany. info@praxisklinik-dr-homagk.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0890-2901
Daniel MarmelsteinCentre for Spinal Cord Injuries and Department of Orthopedics, BG Kliniken Bergmannstrost, 06112, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Nadine HomagkCentre for Spinal Cord Injuries and Department of Orthopedics, BG Kliniken Bergmannstrost, 06112, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Gunther O HofmannClinic of Trauma Hand- und Reconstructive Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena, Germany.
BG Klinikum Bergmannstrost Halle · DEFriedrich Schiller University Jena · DEOrthopädische Praxis · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpondylodiscitis is a chameleon among infectious diseases due to the lack of specific symptoms with which it is associated. It is nevertheless a serious infection, with 7% mortality of hospitalized patients, in large part because of delayed diagnosis. The aim of this study was to develop a diagnosis and course-of-disease index to optimize its treatment. MATERIAL AND

methodsThrough analysis of 296 patients between January 1998 and December 2013, we developed a scoring system for spondylodiscitis, which we term SponDT (Spondylodiscitis Diagnosis and Treatment) based on three traits: (1) the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein (CRP) (mg/dl), (2) pain according to a numeric rating scale (NRS) and (3) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), to monitor its progression following treatment.

resultsThe number of patients receiving treatment increased over the past 15 years of our study. We also found an increasing age of patients at the point of diagnosis across the study, with an average age of 67.7 years. In 34% of patients, spondylodiscitis developed spontaneously. Almost 70% of them did not receive treatment until the first diagnosis using SponDT. Following treatment against spondylodiscitis, pain intensity decreased from 6.0 to 3.1 NRS. The inflammatory markers also decreased (CRP from 119.2 to 46.7 mg/dl). Similarly, MRI revealed a regression in inflammation following treatment. By employing SponDT, patients were diagnosed and entered into treatment with a score of 5.6 (severe spondylodiscitis) and discharged with a score of 2.4 (light/healed spondylodiscitis).

conclusionSponDT can be used to support the diagnosis of spondylodiscitis, particularly in patients suffering from back pain and elevated levels of inflammation, and can be used during the course of treatment to optimize control of therapy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IIa-evidence from at least one well-designed controlled trial which is not randomized.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsBack PainBacterial InfectionsBiomarkersC-Reactive ProteinDiscitisFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementSeverity of Illness IndexStaphylococcal InfectionsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBiomarkersC-Reactive ProteinClassification of severityScoring systemSpondylodiscitis

Identifiers

PMID30971277
PMCPMC6458762
OpenAlexW2945641890

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.