Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34117506›Full record

ArticleEmergency radiology2021

Traumatic cervical spine fracture patterns on CT: a retrospective analysis at a level 1 trauma center.

Anji Tang, Jayashri Pawar, Christopher Bridge, Ryan King, Sujay Kakarmath, Mitchel Harris, Bharti Khurana

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Surgical versus conservative management of Hangman's fractures: a meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anji TangDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7023-0288
Jayashri PawarCenter for Clinical Data Science, Mass General Brigham, 100 Cambridge St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Christopher BridgeCenter for Clinical Data Science, Mass General Brigham, 100 Cambridge St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2242-351X
Ryan KingCenter for Clinical Data Science, Mass General Brigham, 100 Cambridge St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Sujay KakarmathCenter for Clinical Data Science, Mass General Brigham, 100 Cambridge St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9870-8773
Mitchel HarrisDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7003-6138
Bharti KhuranaDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. bkhurana@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7159-3435
Mass General Brigham · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of our study was to determine common acute traumatic cervical spine fracture patterns on CT cervical spine (CTCS).

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 1091 CTCS positive for traumatic fractures performed over a 10-year period at a level 1 trauma center. Fractures were classified by vertebral level, laterality, and anatomic location (anterior/posterior arch, body, odontoid, pedicle, facet, lateral mass, lamina, spinous process, transverse foramina, and transverse processes).

resultsC2 was the most commonly fractured vertebra (38% of all studies), followed by C7 (32.4%). 48.7% of studies had upper cervical spine (C1 and/or C2) fractures. 39.7% of positive studies involved > 1 vertebral level. Conditioned on fractures at one cervical level, the probability of fracture was greatest at adjacent levels with a 50% chance of sustaining a C7 fracture with C6 fracture. However, 31.3% (136) of studies with multi-level fractures had non-contiguous fractures. The most common isolated vertebral process fracture was of the transverse process, seen in 89 (8.2%) studies at a single level, 27 (2.5%) studies at multiple levels. Subaxial spine vertebral process fractures outnumbered body fractures with progressive dominance of vertebral process fracture down the spine.

conclusionC2 was the most commonly fractured vertebral level. Multi-level traumatic cervical spine fractures constituted 40% of our cohort, most commonly at C6/C7 and C1/C2. Although the conditional probability of concurrent fracture in studies with multi-level fractures was greatest in contiguous levels, nearly one-third of multi-level fractures involved non-contiguous fractures.

Indexed as

Spinal FracturesTrauma CentersCervical VertebraeHumansRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedC2 fractureCervical spine fracturesCT cervical spineNon-contiguous fractures

Identifiers

PMID34117506
OpenAlexW3165996902

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.