Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31932384›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Quantitative analysis of medical students' and physicians' knowledge of degenerative cervical myelopathy.

Mueez Waqar, Jane Wilcock, Jayne Garner, Benjamin Davies, Mark Kotter

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Understanding degenerative cervical myelopathy in musculoskeletal practice.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Cervical Myelopathy and Social Media: Mixed Methods Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mueez WaqarAcademic Neurosurgery, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7848-6237
Jane WilcockDepartment of Undergraduate Medical Education, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Jayne GarnerDepartment of Undergraduate Medical Education, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Benjamin DaviesDepartment of Clinical Neurosurgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Mark KotterDepartment of Clinical Neurosurgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK mrk25@cam.ac.uk.
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Medical Research CouncilWellcome Trust 097922/Z/11/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe have previously identified a delay in general practitioner (GP) referrals for patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether an education gap existed for DCM along the GP training pathway by quantitatively assessing training in, and knowledge of, this condition.

designGap analysis: comparison of DCM to other conditions. Comparators selected on the basis of similar presentation/epidemiology (multiple sclerosis), an important spinal emergency (cauda equina syndrome) and a common disease (diabetes mellitus). SUBJECTS: Medical students, foundation doctors and GP trainees. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Assessment of training: quantitative comparison of references to DCM in curricula (undergraduate/postgraduate) and commonly used textbooks (Oxford Handbook Series), to other conditions using modal ranks. (2) Assessment of knowledge: using standardised questions placed in an online question-bank (Passmedicine). Results were presented relative to the question-bank mean (+/-).

resultsDCM had the lowest modal rank of references to the condition in curricula analysis and second lowest modal rank in textbook analysis. In knowledge analysis questions were attempted 127 457 times. Performance for DCM questions in themes of presentation (+6.1%), workup (+0.1%) and management (+1.8%) were all greater than the question-bank mean and within one SD. For students and junior trainees, there was a serial decrease in performance from presentation and workup (-0.7% to +10.4% relative to question-bank mean) and management (-0.6% to -3.9% relative to question-bank mean).

conclusionsAlthough infrequently cited in curricula and learning resources, knowledge relating to DCM was above average. However, knowledge relating to its management was relatively poor.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeCervical VertebraeGeneral PractitionersHumansIntervertebral Disc DegenerationPhysiciansReferral and ConsultationStudents, MedicalTime-to-Treatmentcervical myelopathydegenerative spinegap analysisphysician knowledgespondylosis

Identifiers

PMID31932384
PMCPMC7044983
OpenAlexW3000404045

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.