ArticleActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2021
Cervical spine trauma: impact of different imaging classification systems in the clinical decision-making.
Article in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determining the need for stabilising therapy of cervical spine injuries on CT: towards standardising decision-making in the emergency department.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Epidemiology of Cervical Spine Injuries Requiring Surgical Treatment in Plovdiv and Plovdiv Region, Bulgaria.Korean journal of neurotrauma · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimConsidering the high rate of mortality and permanent disability related to vertebral traumas, an early and detailed diagnosis of the trauma and subsequently an immediate and effective intervention are crucial. Cervical vertebral injury classifications guide treatment choice through a severity grade based on radiological information. The purpose of the present study was to define which imaging classification system could provide the best morphological and clinical-surgical correlations for cervical spine traumas.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients evaluated for cervical spine trauma at our Institution in the period 2015-2020. Information regarding the morphological examination (using CT and MRI), the neurological evaluation, and the therapeutic management were collected. C3-C7 fractures were classified according to the SLIC and AOSpine criteria; axial lesions were classified according to the modified AOSpine for the C1-C2 compartment and through the Roy-Camille and the Anderson D'Alonzo system for the odontoid process of the axis.
results29 patients were included in the final study population. Nine patients with axial spine trauma and 21 with subaxial cervical spine trauma. A conservative approach was applied in 16 patients while nine patients underwent neurosurgery. Considering the therapeutical indications provided by the SLIC system, a 76.9% accordance was found for patients with a <4 score, while a 100% concordance was calculated for patients with a >4 score undergoing neurosurgery. Regarding the AOSspine classification, a 28.6% concordance was observed for patients classified group B being treated with a posterior neurosurgical approach, while for patients belonging to subgroup C, considered for anterior neurosurgical approach, a 66.7% accordance was calculated.
conclusionsThe study demonstrated a better morphological correlation for the AOSpine classification in subaxial trauma and the AOSpine and Anderson D'Alonzo in axial trauma. The therapeutic indication found a better correlation in the SLIC classification for subaxial trauma and the Anderson D'Alonzo for axial ones.
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.