Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32419735›Full record

ReviewSeminars in interventional radiology2020

Vertebral Compression Fractures: Evaluation and Management.

Sreekumar Madassery

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in interventional radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Sphereplasty with 3D porous titanium microspheres for thoracolumbar vertebral compression fractures: analysis of clinical efficacy and safety profile of a novel technique.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sreekumar MadasseryDepartment of Radiology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
Rush University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Painful vertebral body compression fractures are prevalent in elderly patients. Two-thirds of patients will have spontaneous resolution of pain in 4 to 6 weeks and initial management is nonoperative with pain management and bracing. A focused history and exam can identify patients likely to benefit from vertebral body augmentation (e.g., vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty). Patients with persistent back pain and bone marrow edema on magnetic resonance imaging may benefit from injection of cement into the fractured vertebral body with either vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. Patients most likely to benefit are those with severe pain refractory to nonoperative management who are offered intervention within 3 weeks. The procedure is usually performed as an outpatient with rare complications. Most patients report immediate, durable pain relief.

Indexed as

interventional radiologykyphoplastyosteoporosisvertebral body augmentationvertebral compression fracturevertebroplasty

Identifiers

PMID32419735
PMCPMC7224975
OpenAlexW3024282144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.