Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31157148›Full record

ArticleGlobal spine journal2019

RE-CODE DCM (

Benjamin M Davies, Danyal Z Khan, Oliver D Mowforth, Angus G K McNair, Toto Gronlund, Angelos G Kolias, Lindsay Tetreault, Michelle L Starkey, Iwan Sadler, Ellen Sarewitz and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global spine journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
12.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

22 authors at 13 institutions in 4 countries.

Benjamin M DaviesAcademic Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Danyal Z KhanAcademic Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Oliver D MowforthAcademic Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Angus G K McNairUniversity of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Toto GronlundJames Lind Alliance, National Institute for Health Research, Southampton, UK.
Angelos G KoliasAcademic Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Lindsay TetreaultToronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michelle L StarkeyAcademic Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Iwan SadlerMyelopathy.org, Cambridge, UK.
Ellen SarewitzGoffin Consultancy, Kent, UK.
Delphine HoultonMyelopathy.org, Cambridge, UK.
Julia CarterMyelopathy.org, Cambridge, UK.
Sukhvinder Kalsi-RyanToronto Rehabilitation Institute-LC, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Bizhan AarabiUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Brian K KwonVancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Shekar N KurpadMedical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
James HarropThomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jefferson R WilsonUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Robert GrossmanHouston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.
Armin CurtBalgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
Michael G FehlingsToronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mark R N KotterAcademic Neurosurgery Unit, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBMyeloma UK · GBUniversity Health Network · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAMedical College of Wisconsin · USMethodist Hospital · USNational Institute for Health Research · GBThomas Jefferson University Hospital · USUniversitätsklinik Balgrist · CHUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USVancouver General Hospital · CAWellcome/MRC Cambridge Stem Cell Institute · GB

Funding

Department of Health CS-2017-17-010Medical Research Council MC_PC_12009Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designMixed-method consensus process.

objectivesDegenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common and disabling condition that arises when mechanical stress damages the spinal cord as a result of degenerative changes in the surrounding spinal structures. RECODE-DCM (

methodsThis requires a multi-stakeholder partnership and multiple parallel consensus development processes. It will be conducted via 4 phases, adhering to the guidance set out by the COMET (Core Outcomes in Effectiveness Trials) and JLA (James Lind Alliance) initiatives. Phase 1 will consist of preliminary work to inform online Delphi processes (Phase 2) and a consensus meeting (Phase 3). Following the findings of the consensus meeting, a synthesis of relevant measurement instruments will be compiled and assessed as per the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) criteria, to allow recommendations to be made on how to measure agreed data points. Phase 4 will monitor and promote the use of eventual recommendations.

conclusionsRECODE-DCM sets out to establish for the first time an index term, minimum dataset, and research priorities together. Our aim is to reduce waste of health care resources in the future by using patient priorities to inform the scope of future DCM research activities. The consistent use of a standard dataset in DCM clinical studies, audit, and clinical surveillance will facilitate pooled analysis of future data and, ultimately, a deeper understanding of DCM.

Indexed as

auditcervicalcervical stenosiscommon data elements (CDE)consensusCore Outcomes in Effectiveness Trials (COMET)datasetDelphidisc herniationJames Lind Alliance (JLA)myelopathyOPLLoutcomeprotocolresearch prioritiesspondylosissurveillance

Identifiers

PMID31157148
PMCPMC6512197
OpenAlexW2944482488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.