SynthesisNeuroradiology2019
Diagnostic performance of the nerve root sedimentation sign in lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neuroradiology, 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Value of nerve root sedimentation sign in diagnosis and surgical indication of lumbar spinal stenosis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Amelioration of ligamentum flavum hypertrophy using umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cell-derived extracellular vesicles.Bioactive materials · 2023Article
- [Lumbar spinal stenosis].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022Article
- Gravity determines the direction of nerve roots sedimentation in the lumbar spinal canal.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis meta-analysis intends to use all available evidence to clarify the diagnostic performance of the nerve root sedimentation sign (NRSS).
methodsThe PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library database, China knowledge Infrastructure Project (CNKI), and Wanfang Database were searched up to January 2019 for relevant original studies. Data were extracted to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR), and areas under summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) for analysis. The clinical applicability was evaluated with a Fagan's plot and likelihood ratio dot diagram. Deek's funnel plot was used to assess publication bias.
resultsA total of 14 studies including 1333 positive cases and 2658 negative controls were available for the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the NRSS for the diagnosis of LSS was 0.84 (95% CI 0.75, 0.91) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.81, 0.99), respectively. The PLR was 18.6 (95% CI 4.0, 86.8), the NLR was 0.17 (95% CI 0.10, 0.28), and the DOR was 112 (95% CI 17,741). The SROC value was 0.93 (95% CI 0.91, 0.95). The Fagan's plot showed that the pre-test probability was 50% and the post-test probability was 95%. The likelihood ratio dot graph showed that the combined effect of the diagnosis fell on the right upper quadrant. Deek's funnel found no publication bias.
conclusionNRSS has high diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and efficacy, and good clinical application value for the diagnosis of LSS. It can be recommended as an auxiliary tool for diagnosis and screening in clinical practice.
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.