ArticleScientific reports2021
Extent and characteristic of relationships in canal dimension and canal body ratio between cervical and lumbar spine.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practical Application of the AO Spine Primary Infection Classification System: Clarifying Definitions, Borderline Cases and Common Misinterpretations.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- Relationship Between Cervical Central Canal and Neural Foraminal Dimensions in a Normative Population.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- Lower spinal levels and male sex are associated with greater epidural blood patch volume in spontaneous intracranial hypotension.The journal of headache and pain · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A known prevalence of concurrent cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis was shown to be 5-25%, but there is a lack of evidence regarding direct relationships in canal dimension and canal-body ratio between cervical and lumbar spine. Total 247 patients (mean age: 61 years, male: 135) with cervical and lumbar computed tomography scans were retrospectively reviewed. Midsagittal vertebral body and canal diameters in reconstructed images were measured at all cervical and lumbar vertebrae, and canal-body ratios were calculated. The canal diameter and ratio were also compared according to the gender and age, and correlation analysis was performed for each value. There were significant correlations between cervical (C3-C7) and lumbar (L1-L5) canal dimension (p < 0.001). C5 canal diameter was most significantly correlated with L4 canal diameter (r = 0.435, p < 0.001). Cervical canal-body ratios (C3-C7) were also correlated with those of lumbar spine (L1-L5) (p < 0.001). The canal-body ratio of C3 was most highly correlated with L3 (r = 0.477, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, mean canal-body ratios of C3 and L3 were significantly smaller in male patients than female (p = 0.038 and p < 0.001) and patient's age was inversely correlated with C5 canal diameter (r = - 0.223, p < 0.001) and C3 canal-body ratio (r = - 0.224, p < 0.001). Spinal canal dimension and canal-body ratio have moderate degrees of correlations between cervical and lumbar spine and the elderly male patients show the tendency of small canal diameter and canal-body ratio. This relationship of cervical and lumbar spine can be an important evidence to explain to the patients.
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.