ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
The Level of Conus Medullaris in 629 Healthy Japanese Individuals.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of health outcomes between traumatic spinal cord and cauda equina injuries.Spinal cord · 2026Article
- Surgical outcomes of tethered cord syndrome in patients with normal conus medullaris and filum terminale without urologic symptoms.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2024Article
- High-Riding Conus Medullaris Syndrome: A Case Report and Literature Review-Its Comparison with Cauda Equina Syndrome.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Review
- Article
- Influence of Age and Gender on Intervertebral Disk Degeneration and Height in the Thoracolumbar Spine.Spine surgery and related research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The conus medullaris typically terminates at the L1 level; however, variations in its level and the factors associated with the conus medullaris level are unclear. We investigated the level of conus medullaris on magnetic resonance imaging in healthy volunteers. In total, 629 healthy adult volunteers (≥50 individuals of each sex and in each decade of age from 20 to 70) were enrolled. The level of the conus medullaris was assessed based on the T2-weighted sagittal magnetic resonance images, and factors affecting its level were investigated employing multivariate regression analysis including the participants' background and radiographical parameters. L1 was the most common conus medullaris level. Participant height was significantly shorter in the caudally placed conus medullaris (
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.