Best cut-off point of the cervical facet joint area as a new morphological measurement tool to predict cervical foraminal stenosis.

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.

1. Clinical applied anatomical study between the uncinate process of the cervical spine and the vertebral artery.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
   Article
2. 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.) · 2025
   Article
3. Quantitative Radiological Characteristics of the Facet Joints in Patients with Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis.Journal of pain research · 2022
   Article
4. Is the Severity of Cervical Foraminal Stenosis Related to the Severity and Sidedness of Symptoms?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
   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

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as